I think I love you George Orwell - class hatred explained

[demagogic_schizoid]

This is me reconstructing a post from two different chapters in The Road To Wigan Pier. It's like he reacher into my mind and put my thoughts on "class" into words. I re-phrase a litte now and then, but it remains the same. I don't think American readers will really get this at all, however, people from other coutnries, such as, but not exclusively, Britain, should.

I especially like the way he describes how desperation made people humble - the image we get when we think of the 1930's, 40's or 50's today, and which the typical angry old man will regale you with - but how it wasn't always that way, and in fact Britain was pretty lawless, vulgar and "chavvy" back in the 1920's, or before the Great War. But history goes round in circles. Perhaps a bit of "hooliganism" is the price of a quite wealthy society...because however bad modern materialistic culture is, I wouldn't ever wish for the alternative that hit people in the depression (and that Orwell describes here, or like I've seen in argentina for example) - and it may well happen again.

Anyway, some quotes about what it's like being a "decent" person who isn't rich and therefore has to grow up around "chavs" - what Americans would call "white trash" - and some of the reasons why such people (as I was, as I guess many of you are) hate them so much:

"I was born into what you might describe as the lower-upper-middle class...the essential point baout the English class system is that it is not definable simply by money....(therefore) to belong to this class when you were at the ?400 a year level was a queer business, for it meant that your gentility was almost purely theoretical. You lived, so to speak, at two levels simultaneously. Theoretically you knew how to wear your clothes and order a dinner, but in practice you could never afford to go to a decent tailor or a decent restaurant...for any shabby genteel family of the kind I am describing, there is far more consciousness of poverty than in any working class family...The real brougeoisie, those in the ?2000 a year class and over, have their money as a thick layer of padding between themselves and the class they plunder; in so far as they are aware of the lower orders at all they are aware of them as employees, servants and tradesmen. But it is quite different for the poor devils lower down who are struggling to live genteel lives on what are virtually working class incomes. These last are forced into close and, in a sense, intimate contact with the working class, and I suspect it is from them that the traditional upper class attitude to common people is derived.

And what is this attitude? An attitude of sniggering superiority punctuated by vicious bursts of hatred. Look at any copy of Punch, you will find it taken for granted that any working class person is a figure of fun, unless he shows signs of being too prosperous, in which case he becomes a demon.

(in explanation of how these attitudes have arisen): A shabby genteel family is in much the same position as a family of poor whites living in a street where everyone else is a negro. In such circumstances you have got to cling to your gentility because it is the only thing you have; and meanwhile you are hated for your stuck-upness and for your accent and manners which stamp you as one of the boss class...We understood they (the working class)hated us, but we could never understand why, and so we set it down to pure, vicious malignity. To me, in my early boyhood, and to other children of families like mine, "common" people seemed almost sub-human. They had coarse faces, hidden accents, and gross manners; they hated everyone who was not like themselves, and if they got half a chance they would insult you in brutal ways. For one must remember that before the (first world) war there
was much more overt class hatred than there is now (1936)...Anyone over 30 can remember the time when it was impossible for a well-dressed person to walk through a slumw ithout being hooted at. Whole quarters of big towns were considered unsafe because of "hooligans" (now - 1936 - almost an extinct type), and the London gutter boy everywhere who, with his loud voice and lack of intelelctual scruples, could make life a misery for anyone who considered it beneath his dignity to answer back. A recurrent terror of my holidays, when I was a small boy, was the gangs of "cads" who were liable to set upon you five or ten to one....Just fancy (this) happening now...they would be much more likely to hang around (an upper lcass person) in vague hope of a tip...due to the weapon of mass unemployment, the English working class have become servile with a frightening rapidity.

when I was 14 or 15, I was an odious little snob, but no worse than other boys of my own age or class...at school I was in a difficult position, for I was among boys who, for the most part, were much richer than myself...the effects it had on me were probably the usual ones. On the one hand, it made me cling ever tighter to my gentility; on the other, it filled me with resentment against the boys whose parents were richer than mine and who took care to let me know it. I despised anyone who was not describable as a "gentleman", but also I hated the hoggishly rich...the correct and gentle thing, I felt, was to be educated but to have no money...but those years...were a queer time to be at school, for England was nearer to revolution than she has been since or had been for a century earlier...Hence, at the age of seventeen or eighteen, I was both a snob and a revolutionary. I was against all authority, and I loosely described myself as a socialist. But I had no notion that the working class were human beings. At a distance I could agonize over their sufferings, but I hated them and despised them whenever I came into contact with them. I was revolted by their accents and infuriated by their habitual rudeness. One must remember then, that just after the (ed - first world) war, the English working class were in a fighting mood...all through the war and for a time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment....there was a turbulent feeling in the air...people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment. They still vaguely expected a Utopia, and more than ever before were openly hostile to the h-pronouncing class. So to the shock absorbers of the bourgeoisie, such as myself, "common people" still appeared brutal and repulsive..."

[booyalab]

I love George Orwell too, take a gander at the similar threads.

[omnirook]

This is me reconstructing a post from two different chapters in The Road To Wigan Pier. It's like he reacher into my mind and put my thoughts on "class" into words. I re-phrase a litte now and then, but it remains the same. I don't think American readers will really get this at all, however, people from other coutnries, such as, but not exclusively, Britain, should.

I especially like the way he describes how desperation made people humble - the image we get when we think of the 1930's, 40's or 50's today, and which the typical angry old man will regale you with - but how it wasn't always that way, and in fact Britain was pretty lawless, vulgar and "chavvy" back in the 1920's, or before the Great War. But history goes round in circles. Perhaps a bit of "hooliganism" is the price of a quite wealthy society...because however bad modern materialistic culture is, I wouldn't ever wish for the alternative that hit people in the depression (and that Orwell describes here, or like I've seen in argentina for example) - and it may well happen again.

Anyway, some quotes about what it's like being a "decent" person who isn't rich and therefore has to grow up around "chavs" - what Americans would call "white trash" - and some of the reasons why such people (as I was, as I guess many of you are) hate them so much:

"I was born into what you might describe as the lower-upper-middle class...the essential point baout the English class system is that it is not definable simply by money....(therefore) to belong to this class when you were at the ?400 a year level was a queer business, for it meant that your gentility was almost purely theoretical. You lived, so to speak, at two levels simultaneously. Theoretically you knew how to wear your clothes and order a dinner, but in practice you could never afford to go to a decent tailor or a decent restaurant...for any shabby genteel family of the kind I am describing, there is far more consciousness of poverty than in any working class family...The real brougeoisie, those in the ?2000 a year class and over, have their money as a thick layer of padding between themselves and the class they plunder; in so far as they are aware of the lower orders at all they are aware of them as employees, servants and tradesmen. But it is quite different for the poor devils lower down who are struggling to live genteel lives on what are virtually working class incomes. These last are forced into close and, in a sense, intimate contact with the working class, and I suspect it is from them that the traditional upper class attitude to common people is derived.

And what is this attitude? An attitude of sniggering superiority punctuated by vicious bursts of hatred. Look at any copy of Punch, you will find it taken for granted that any working class person is a figure of fun, unless he shows signs of being too prosperous, in which case he becomes a demon.

(in explanation of how these attitudes have arisen): A shabby genteel family is in much the same position as a family of poor whites living in a street where everyone else is a negro. In such circumstances you have got to cling to your gentility because it is the only thing you have; and meanwhile you are hated for your stuck-upness and for your accent and manners which stamp you as one of the boss class...We understood they (the working class)hated us, but we could never understand why, and so we set it down to pure, vicious malignity. To me, in my early boyhood, and to other children of families like mine, "common" people seemed almost sub-human. They had coarse faces, hidden accents, and gross manners; they hated everyone who was not like themselves, and if they got half a chance they would insult you in brutal ways. For one must remember that before the (first world) war there
was much more overt class hatred than there is now (1936)...Anyone over 30 can remember the time when it was impossible for a well-dressed person to walk through a slumw ithout being hooted at. Whole quarters of big towns were considered unsafe because of "hooligans" (now - 1936 - almost an extinct type), and the London gutter boy everywhere who, with his loud voice and lack of intelelctual scruples, could make life a misery for anyone who considered it beneath his dignity to answer back. A recurrent terror of my holidays, when I was a small boy, was the gangs of "cads" who were liable to set upon you five or ten to one....Just fancy (this) happening now...they would be much more likely to hang around (an upper lcass person) in vague hope of a tip...due to the weapon of mass unemployment, the English working class have become servile with a frightening rapidity.

when I was 14 or 15, I was an odious little snob, but no worse than other boys of my own age or class...at school I was in a difficult position, for I was among boys who, for the most part, were much richer than myself...the effects it had on me were probably the usual ones. On the one hand, it made me cling ever tighter to my gentility; on the other, it filled me with resentment against the boys whose parents were richer than mine and who took care to let me know it. I despised anyone who was not describable as a "gentleman", but also I hated the hoggishly rich...the correct and gentle thing, I felt, was to be educated but to have no money...but those years...were a queer time to be at school, for England was nearer to revolution than she has been since or had been for a century earlier...Hence, at the age of seventeen or eighteen, I was both a snob and a revolutionary. I was against all authority, and I loosely described myself as a socialist. But I had no notion that the working class were human beings. At a distance I could agonize over their sufferings, but I hated them and despised them whenever I came into contact with them. I was revolted by their accents and infuriated by their habitual rudeness. One must remember then, that just after the (ed - first world) war, the English working class were in a fighting mood...all through the war and for a time afterwards there had been high wages and abundant employment....there was a turbulent feeling in the air...people had not yet settled down to a lifetime of unemployment. They still vaguely expected a Utopia, and more than ever before were openly hostile to the h-pronouncing class. So to the shock absorbers of the bourgeoisie, such as myself, "common people" still appeared brutal and repulsive..."

We have something in common: each of us had one parent who was English - if I recall your background story correctly. For both of us, our parent who was not English was Latin and American (mine, my father, from the US, an Italian-American; yours, whichever, from South America: do I dare assume that you have some Spanish ancestry?). Anyway, point is, each of us has English ancestors and relatives on one side of the family. We don't exactly fit in. Given that so many still sniff and snort about the Queen having so many German ancestors, do you really think that the English consider you one of them? To which class does your English parent belong? Mine was "wurkun clarse" - which meant that the Queen was lovely, some of the lords were fine, but the gentry were high-standing heaps of muck that should be cheated in every way possible every time that they closed their eyes to blink. The nicest "G'mornun, sorr" was followed - under the breath, of course - by a quick "'e shud choke t'deaf on 'is furst byt'ov tha." So, in my experience, there was a differentiation between the members of the upper classes. A peer was simply better. A courtesy title was "Just whom do you think you're kidding?"

[Larkin]

I have a friend who immigrated to the states in 1960. He came here to be an artist and he was sucessful. He hates England and can barely stay 24hours on a visit. He confided in me once that he could never have become an artist in England because he might be subject to remarks like,
"Who do you think are?"
My friend was probably somewhere in the middle class. Comments like that came from above and below.
Americans like myself, have little understanding for the subtlies of class distinction in the UK.
whether it is true or not, i dont know, but he once told me that the best Britain had to offer had died in the great war and the colonial wars or just went native.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I love George Orwell too, take a gander at the similar threads.

I just did...nice thread. I gave it 5 stars. I like this:


Pacifist: Those who 'abjure' violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf. "

An annoying Quaker at my uni was proud that her grandparents didn't fight in World War 2. Self-explanataory.


We have something in common: each of us had one parent who was English - if I recall your background story correctly. For both of us, our parent who was not English was Latin and American (mine, my father, from the US, an Italian-American; yours, whichever, from South America: do I dare assume that you have some Spanish ancestry?). Anyway, point is, each of us has English ancestors and relatives on one side of the family. We don't exactly fit in. Given that so many still sniff and snort about the Queen having so many German ancestors, do you really think that the English consider you one of them?

It's different with the Queen, because she clearly is a foreigner to all intents and purposes...she's from a completely different "caste" to 99% of people. In your case, you grew up in America, you speak with an accent, and the chances are you're darker than me - so your experiences will be different to mine. Apart from being a wierd intp, I haven't had any trouble being considered "one of them".



To which class does your English parent belong?Mine was "wurkun clarse" - which meant that the Queen was lovely, some of the lords were fine, but the gentry were high-standing heaps of muck that should be cheated in every way possible every time that they closed their eyes to blink. The nicest "G'mornun, sorr" was followed - under the breath, of course - by a quick "'e shud choke t'deaf on 'is furst byt'ov tha." So, in my experience, there was a differentiation between the members of the upper classes. A peer was simply better. A courtesy title was "Just whom do you think you're kidding?"

No offence, but they sound quite "deferential" - what Orwell disparagingly called "cap touchers" (working class Tories). I guess my dad's parents were "respectable" working class (son of a bus driver and a gypsy - not so respectable actually - married daughter of a mining technician - posher than a miner - who came to London during the depression to find work, and was considered "Scottish" for being a northerner) - they were that class of people who grew up very poor and then became lower middle class in the 1950's and 1960's,thanks to new suburbs being built, the welfare state, Hire Purchase, full employment, etc. Grandad was a hard-line Trade Union leader, which may surprise you - he once gave up a job as a bus company labour relations director because they were paying him more than the Bus drivers. He loathed the Conservatives/uper class with an indescribable passion, and used to sympathise with the IRA. His brother on the other hand was less "intellectual", and very right-wing - I never met him because those two didn't speak. One of his kids joined the SAS, and today is a private contractor in Iraq. Funny how stereotypical people can be, no?


I have a friend who immigrated to the states in 1960. He came here to be an artist and he was sucessful. He hates England and can barely stay 24hours on a visit. He confided in me once that he could never have become an artist in England because he might be subject to remarks like,
"Who do you think are?"
My friend was probably somewhere in the middle class. Comments like that came from above and below.
Americans like myself, have little understanding for the subtlies of class distinction in the UK.
whether it is true or not, i dont know, but he once told me that the best Britain had to offer had died in the great war and the colonial wars or just went native.


I don't know your friends experiences. Britain today is quite liberal and tolerant, as long as you aren't "trash". If your friend was middle class he would probably be left to his own devices. As for the best dying in the wars - I guess the youngest and fittest were sent to war. How much this influenced the gene pool I don't know - perhaps it's why we always do so badly at the world cup.

[Ferrus]

I don't know your friends experiences. Britain today is quite liberal and tolerant
The middle class is, punctilliously, smarmily so. But the working classes are as coarse, vulgar and intolerant as when Orwell wrote, and thus the 'chav stereotype' has proliferated now that socialism is dead and the left has abandoned its working class charges for so many plethoric 'good causes' and 'interest groups'.. Snobbery laces every niciety of life - the way you eat your food, how you each your food, what you call your food. And so on. I know because much of my family is working class, though I myself probably occupy a social position approximating lower-middle class now. The working class is actually quite a hostile enviroment for the INTP, given its animus against education, against 'fancy talk', against dissentient voices. Yet, as many have said with respect to southerners in the USA, there is nevertheless a crass honesty with their attitudes. The Middle Class are, in many respects, as culpable. But they mask their hatreds, their racism, their snobbery with what Orwell so appositely describes as the padding of money. They seperate themselves from the reality so they can animadvert upon the vulgar hordes. Their strutting, complacent, hypocritical humbug is never nearly as mocked as the vittriol that attends the working classes, and always has.

The opinion of Larkin's artist is instructive - the country is so class-ridden that people will assume that by trying to educate yourself, or by trying to be more cultured, improve your sensibilities that your chief aim is class improvement not individual improvement. I'll admit some of the revulsion is British cynicism, but a lot of it is covert deference and inverted snobbery.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The middle class is, punctilliously, smarmily so. But the working classes are as coarse, vulgar and intolerant as when Orwell wrote, and thus the 'chav stereotype' has proliferated now that socialism is dead and the left has abandoned its working class charges for so many plethoric 'good causes' and 'interest groups'...

True.

Orwell called the British left of the 1930's a bunch of vegetarian, sandle-wearing, fruit juice drinking Quakers, who he wished would go back to Welwyn Garden City and practice their yoga exercises queitly, because they were damaging his attempt to sell "socialism". Intolerant perhaps, but I get his gist.

However, this is the high-minded, intellecutal left. there's a socialism of sorts among the British working class - very few actually do vote Tory after all - though you might say it's closer to fascism - BNP is Britain's most un-capitalist party, but also perhaps it's least socialist. I guess many people of that class would vote BNP or Labour, but nothing in between. And if we look back, Oswald Mosely was once a Labour Party member....Robert Kilroy Silk was even a Labour MP!...and now we have Hazel Blears echoing what Enoch Powell once said...it's a fine line sometimes, and I guess one mans socialist can be another mans fascist.


The working class is actually quite a hostile enviroment for the INTP, given its animus against education, against 'fancy talk', against dissentient voices.

Very much so. it's probably the same anywhere. Orwell decribes how for a working class person to become "intellectual", they had to cease to be working class...I think it's the same today.

On a side note, I see Orwell as perhaps XNTP...from the little I know of him that is.


Yet, as many have said with respect to southerners in the USA, there is nevertheless a crass honesty with their attitudes. The Middle Class are, in many respects, as culpable. But they mask their hatreds, their racism, their snobbery with what Orwell so appositely describes as the padding of money. They seperate themselves from the reality so they can animadvert upon the vulgar hordes. Their strutting, complacent, hypocritical humbug is never nearly as mocked as the vittriol that attends the working classes, and always has.

yes, this is true. for example, Prince Phillip is a great laugh, so is Harry when he dresses as a Nzi, but put those opinions into the mouth of a chav (eg, dare I name her on INTPc, Jade Goody!), and they are scum. Because such people never have to compete for work or housing, they never actually act on their prejudice "outside" of what is acceptable - ie they vote Tory, not BNP - they talk about "culture", not "race", etc.

[Ferrus]

Very much so. it's probably the same anywhere. Orwell decribes how for a working class person to become "intellectual", they had to cease to be working class...I think it's the same today.
Absolutely, and it will usually rend them from their families.

However, I do think many immigrant families are often outside the class system of a country somewhat, hence migration provides an escape of sorts.

[omnirook]

I just did...nice thread. I gave it 5 stars. I like this:



An annoying Quaker at my uni was proud that her grandparents didn't fight in World War 2. Self-explanataory.



It's different with the Queen, because she clearly is a foreigner to all intents and purposes...she's from a completely different "caste" to 99% of people. In your case, you grew up in America, you speak with an accent, and the chances are you're darker than me - so your experiences will be different to mine. Apart from being a wierd intp, I haven't had any trouble being considered "one of them".

I take it that it was your father, then. You haven't got a funny last name!;)

Except that my eyes are dark brown and my mother's eyes were bright blue, there wasn't so much of a difference in our complexions ... Ah, well, the picture doesn't show how blue her eyes were. I hate that about blue eyes: they don't photograph true unless the lighting and background are just so. Ah, well, her eyes were a bright blue. That photograph was taken in October, 1990, in England. My mother was ill and had been for a long time. She had been quite pretty when she was young. Cancer does that to you.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/edd32f4bef4a55ef9989a2cd665c04b4MomAndMark1990.jpg





No offence, but they sound quite "deferential" - what Orwell disparagingly called "cap touchers" (working class Tories). I guess my dad's parents
Ah, yes ...


were "respectable" working class (son of a bus driver and a gypsy - not so respectable actually - married daughter of a mining technician - posher than a miner - who came to London during the depression to find work, and was considered "Scottish" for being a northerner) - they were that class of people who grew up very poor and then became lower middle class in the 1950's and 1960's,thanks to new suburbs being built, the welfare state, Hire Purchase, full employment, etc. Grandad was a hard-line Trade Union leader, which may surprise you - he once gave up a job as a bus company labour relations director because they were paying him more than the Bus drivers. He loathed the Conservatives/uper class with an indescribable passion, and used to sympathise with the IRA. His brother on the other hand was less "intellectual", and very right-wing - I never met him because those two didn't speak. One of his kids joined the SAS, and today is a private contractor in Iraq. Funny how stereotypical people can be, no?

Yes. Funny ... My father's family are also 1/2-assed in their despisal of the pessa novante (the establishment). They don't hate the priests, as they should - I mean, if they want to go forward minus hypocrisy ... But they don't. That's a thorough-going guinea part of me: not only an acceptance of the hypocrisy that fills the world but a belief that the world would fall apart w/o it. At least I (occasionally) believe that the world would be better off if it fell apart ... Needless to say, la mia famiglia has also had its dealings w/the unions: corrupting them! - but not how you would think. No. It wasn't about getting more for the bosses by taking from the workers. It was about getting obscene amounts for the workers, then taking una considerazione from the workers, un taglio, a cut. Secondo la mia famiglia corruption is - inevitable: you don't fight what you can't beat - you join it.

[demagogic_schizoid]

nice photo, where is it? you don't look un-english, actually:


Funny ... My father's family are also 1/2-assed in their despisal of the pessa novante (the establishment). They don't hate the priests, as they should - I mean, if they want to go forward minus hypocrisy ... But they don't. That's a thorough-going guinea part of me: not only an acceptance of the hypocrisy that fills the world but a belief that the world would fall apart w/o it. At least I (occasionally) believe that the world would be better off if it fell apart ... Needless to say, la mia famiglia has also had its dealings w/the unions: corrupting them! - but not how you would think. No. It wasn't about getting more for the bosses by taking from the workers. It was about getting obscene amounts for the workers, then taking una considerazione from the workers, un taglio, a cut. Secondo la mia famiglia corruption is - inevitable: you don't fight what you can't beat - you join it.

Yeah I identify with the "guinea" side too. As far as I know no-one in my mums family was involved with directly taking from the workers, but I know that her parents were staunch "anti-peronists" - which in effect meant siding with the military and the clergy. Kind of sad; in the way that Orwell described, they were not rich by any means, they were just that kind of culturally middle class person who finds themselves being hated for their airs and graces and flees to fascism. For example my mums mother was a state sector teacher - paid peanuts - but she was traditionalist, Catholic, and potentially quite the sort of person who would support some kind of socialism. But the culture wars by the Peronists - when Evita died she was obliged, like all public sector employyes, to travel from her home, hours away, to Buenos Aires, and forced to kiss the coffin, or lose her job. The needless "personal" aspect of class-hatred and culture wars scared her, and doubtless millions like her, towards supporting military coups and hardline Catholics. And in effect, buying into some very corrupt arrangements.

[apple]

The middle class is, punctilliously, smarmily so. But the working classes are as coarse, vulgar and intolerant as when Orwell wrote, and thus the 'chav stereotype' has proliferated now that socialism is dead and the left has abandoned its working class charges for so many plethoric 'good causes' and 'interest groups'.. Snobbery laces every niciety of life - the way you eat your food, how you each your food, what you call your food. And so on. I know because much of my family is working class, though I myself probably occupy a social position approximating lower-middle class now. The working class is actually quite a hostile enviroment for the INTP, given its animus against education, against 'fancy talk', against dissentient voices. Yet, as many have said with respect to southerners in the USA, there is nevertheless a crass honesty with their attitudes. The Middle Class are, in many respects, as culpable. But they mask their hatreds, their racism, their snobbery with what Orwell so appositely describes as the padding of money. They seperate themselves from the reality so they can animadvert upon the vulgar hordes. Their strutting, complacent, hypocritical humbug is never nearly as mocked as the vittriol that attends the working classes, and always has.

The opinion of Larkin's artist is instructive - the country is so class-ridden that people will assume that by trying to educate yourself, or by trying to be more cultured, improve your sensibilities that your chief aim is class improvement not individual improvement. I'll admit some of the revulsion is British cynicism, but a lot of it is covert deference and inverted snobbery.

I couldn't agree with you more. Although The Middle Class uses money to form their identities and pat themselves on the back for not eating at McDonald's. It's entirely hypocritical if not a feeble attempt to assuage their egos that they don't more closely resemble the vulgar attitudes of the working classes that they mirror and also perhaps out of some deep-seeded resentment towards the educated classes who don't have to work for a living.

The stereotype of the 'chav' pointing out to others about the accumulation of assets in a grotesque fashion might be amusing to some, but really, it displays a necessity to resemble a snob, while not picking up on the inverted snobbery of others.

[Larkin]

I like old english movies. Although i am patial to the quirky ones from the 60"s on like the "L-shaped room", "Morgan", The Servant and Blow-up.

The subject for this post are the english movies through the 50's. They were not very contrivertial and socialist in nature. The Purple Gang, The Lady Killers and towards the 60's the carry on series "Carry on Nurse."
I say that because they were made for a broad UK audience.
Most of the plots encompassed a mixed class gang working together to further the story. It was as if they needed a good guy character for each class to identify with. I would hate to have to write a screen play having those requirements.

[Kami]

An annoying Quaker at my uni was proud that her grandparents didn't fight in World War 2.
For some people it is something to be proud of, since American intervention in that war was really unnecessary. Why would a person enlist in the army and risk their lives if it was not really in their interest to do so? Pure patriotism and/or blind nationalism?

[demagogic_schizoid]

For some people it is something to be proud of, since American intervention in that war was really unnecessary. Why would a person enlist in the army and risk their lives if it was not really in their interest to do so?

I'm not in America, I'm in London.

[omnirook]

nice photo, where is it? you don't look un-english, actually:

The picture was taken somewhere in the Lake District. My mother had never seen it, so I took her up there. It is a lovely place, yes - but not the sort of place that would interest me. It's cute, and it's quaint, and there are lots of moderately well-to-do retirees fussing over high teas and flower beds, the sort of place where picture-postcard photographers earn their money taking pictures of scenery. I have always been indifferent to scenery: trees and brooks and lakes and elegant bed-and-breakfast establishments ... :zzz: ... Anyway, my mother liked it. It was the sort of place that she had always fancied living. My father's family would call the Lake District "WASP Heaven," just as they call Forrest Hills in Queens "Jew Town." In neither case, is a particular insult meant; what is meant is "Not for us." (A guinea did move into Forrest Hills and, of course, no sooner was he in his house than he was on his lawn, placing the "Madonna on the half-shell." Naturally, his Jewish neighbors were offended. But we're talking a guinea here, so that meant WAR. Come Christmas time, the lights that he put on the house sucked up enough electricity to power the Lake District for 2 years. Then he had the balls to put a donation box in his front yard to help pay for the lights! Car loads of cugini from Bayside, Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, and even Staten Island were coming to see the Christmas lights - and to put money in the donation box. "It's discrimination against Italians! Nobody talks about that. It's OK that we're always gangsters in the movies and on tv!" complained a made man to the news camera. My attitude was - if a Jew had moved into Bayside and put up one of those huts they build for that holiday of theirs, you dagos would have complained about it. Forrest Hills is a Jewish neighborhood. Why would they want a lighted statue of the Virgin Mary on somebody's lawn? Yes, this is America, but you know damned well that America has been balkanized since the founding. (Jews and Italians have always lived side-by-side, but in America, it's the Reformed Jews and the Ultra-Orthodox Jews who live w/the Italians, not the Conservative and Orthodox Jews who populate Forrest Hills: people don't understand that "Jews" is a catch-phrase for people who are as split up as the Christians w/dozens of sects that get together only to fight off non-Jews. Otherwise, they despise each other. You've got the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Borough Park who are against Israel and who are always in trouble for supporting the Palestinians. But the news doesn't tell people about that.)



Yeah I identify with the "guinea" side too. As far as I know no-one in my mums family was involved with directly taking from the workers, but I know that her parents were staunch "anti-peronists" - which in effect meant siding with the military and the clergy. Kind of sad; in the way that Orwell described, they were not rich by any means, they were just that kind of culturally middle class person who finds themselves being hated for their airs and graces and flees to fascism. For example my mums mother was a state sector teacher - paid peanuts - but she was traditionalist, Catholic, and potentially quite the sort of person who would support some kind of socialism. But the culture wars by the Peronists - when Evita died she was obliged, like all public sector employyes, to travel from her home, hours away, to Buenos Aires, and forced to kiss the coffin, or lose her job. The needless "personal" aspect of class-hatred and culture wars scared her, and doubtless millions like her, towards supporting military coups and hardline Catholics. And in effect, buying into some very corrupt arrangements.


It's strange, isn't it? The middle-class are trapped between the rich and the poor and are despised by both the rich and the poor. The rich use the middle-class as a buffer, and the poor see them as "wanna-be's." Quentin Crisp made me laugh about Evita Peron when I went to see his one-man show. He was talking about how, in this world, style was far more important than content. Evita was one of his examples. He made several very funny comments about her morals before saying that, because she had style, she could get away w/raising her arms while giving a speech and shouting, "We, the shirtless!" while the diamond bracelets that were on her arms "slid down w/a sound not unlike a railway train pulling into a siding."

[apple]

I have always been indifferent to scenery: trees and brooks and lakes and elegant bed-and-breakfast establishments ... :zzz: ... Anyway, my mother liked it.

Oh, I see. :)


It's strange, isn't it? The middle-class are trapped between the rich and the poor and are despised by both the rich and the poor. The rich use the middle-class as a buffer, and the poor see them as "wanna-be's."

I've never met an Englishman who didn't despise his own class, at least a little bit. Orwell is the perfect example to that testament. As far as "wanna-be's", are you actually defending the chavs/douchebags/gangstas? If you are, you have a funny sense of humor.


Quentin Crisp made me laugh about Evita Peron when I went to see his one-man show. He was talking about how, in this world, style was far more important than content. Evita was one of his examples. He made several very funny comments about her morals before saying that, because she had style, she could get away w/raising her arms while giving a speech and shouting, "We, the shirtless!" while the diamond bracelets that were on her arms "slid down w/a sound not unlike a railway train pulling into a siding."

Men always seem to notice the certain style of women, that's not anything new.

[Kami]

I'm not in America, I'm in London.
Same there. Why the hell would some dude from London go and risk his life fighting against Germany to save Poland?
Why should he give a shit about Poland or opposing Germany?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Same there. Why the hell would some dude from London go and risk his life fighting against Germany to save Poland?
Why should he give a shit about Poland or opposing Germany?

Well funnily enough this girl is of Polish descent. I don't know what side of the family. But you weren't to know that.

By the way, Britain wasn't fighting just to stop Germany invading Poland. Germany was trying to invade Britain, eventually, or at least France, so they could be constantly on our doorstep, being ever more demanding. Everyone knew they wouldn't stop at Poland. I get the feeling you're being unintuitive, perhaps deliberately so just for the sake of argument. People fight for all sorts of reasons, not just immediate self-interest or "blind nationalism". Some people actually have personal beliefs which they place above their narrow lives - maybe the holocaust disgusted some people so much that they wanted to risk their lives to end it. Perhaps you can't envisage this, or perhaps you can, but just want to ignore that which is not "rational", because that way everything is much simpler.

Anyway, have you read anything about the Nazis plans for the world? I don't think ignoring them was really an option, and I think the lives of the conscientious objectors were definitely better as a result of the Nazis being defeated - by force - than they would have been if nobody had been willing to resist them.

[Kami]

Well funnily enough this girl is of Polish descent
Well yes I guess that makes it a little strange.


Germany was trying to invade Britain
:rolleyes:
Hitler had no war aims against Britain until Britain declared war on his country. Nice job, Britain! I hope you are aware that he considered British to be Aryan and wanted UK to be his ally.


Some people actually have personal beliefs which they place above their narrow lives
What believes? The belief of imposing liberalism worldwide or expansing British sphere of world influence? (Never mind the fact that Britain actually lost much of its world influence as a result of that war rather than gaining any)
If those people cared about democracy or liberalism so much, why would they go to war to defend a country which isn't even democratic (Poland, not UK)?


Anyway, have you read anything about the Nazis plans for the world?
Reverse the Versailles, unite Germans in one country, invade Poland, invade USSR, settle the area with Germans, move Jews out of Europe somewhere beyond the ural mountains. That's the jist of the plan summed up in one sentence.

[omnirook]

Well funnily enough this girl is of Polish descent. I don't know what side of the family. But you weren't to know that.

By the way, Britain wasn't fighting just to stop Germany invading Poland. Germany was trying to invade Britain, eventually, or at least France, so they could be constantly on our doorstep, being ever more demanding. Everyone knew they wouldn't stop at Poland. I get the feeling you're being unintuitive, perhaps deliberately so just for the sake of argument. People fight for all sorts of reasons, not just immediate self-interest or "blind nationalism". Some people actually have personal beliefs which they place above their narrow lives - maybe the holocaust disgusted some people so much that they wanted to risk their lives to end it. Perhaps you can't envisage this, or perhaps you can, but just want to ignore that which is not "rational", because that way everything is much simpler.

Anyway, have you read anything about the Nazis plans for the world? I don't think ignoring them was really an option, and I think the lives of the conscientious objectors were definitely better as a result of the Nazis being defeated - by force - than they would have been if nobody had been willing to resist them.

Ahem - let's get our official history straight: per the garbage that is fed to students (at least in the US), the Allies were shocked to find the concentration camps at the end of the war, were utterly horrified, had had no idea that that was what the NAZI's had been doing. Now, I'm willing to accept that the average soldier on the ground knew nothing about it; most of the time, the poor bastard didn't know where he was, where he had come from, where he was going - or why concerning any of it. BUT the leaders knew. And they made a very cold and calculating decision to allow it to go on. Why? For every soldier, drop of fuel, or bit of material that the Germans expended on killing Jews and other undesirables, that was one less soldier, one less drop of fuel, one less bit of material that the Germans could turn against the Allies. Ugly - but true. The Swedish were quite clear and concise in informing the Allies of what was going on - and the Allies had it from the Russians and from the Resistance - and from their own intelligence, as well. Sorry, NOBODY was fighting against the Holocaust. NOBODY - except for the handful of Jews who resisted in Warsaw and in some of the camps.

[omnirook]

Well yes I guess that makes it a little strange.


:rolleyes:
Hitler had no war aims against Britain until Britain declared war on his country. Nice job, Britain! I hope you are aware that he considered British to be Aryan and wanted UK to be his ally.


What believes? The belief of imposing liberalism worldwide or expansing British sphere of world influence? (Never mind the fact that Britain actually lost much of its world influence as a result of that war rather than gaining any)
If those people cared about democracy or liberalism so much, why would they go to war to defend a country which isn't even democratic (Poland, not UK)?


Reverse the Versailles, unite Germans in one country, invade Poland, invade USSR, settle the area with Germans, move Jews out of Europe somewhere beyond the ural mountains. That's the jist of the plan summed up in one sentence.

This much is certainly true. Through the 1930's both Goering and Himmler were very involved in attempts to get the Jews resettled. Trips to Palestine were made by NAZI agents, and a process of accelerating visas was put in place. Problem was, nobody would accept the Jews, not even the US. It was not until 1942 in the Conference at Wansee that endlosung, the "Final Solution" was formulated. Had Jews been killed before this? Yes. Many. But not until Wansee did the NAZI's have it in mind simply to exterminate the lot of them. The important point in all of this (and my post above) is that the NAZI's were not alone in cuplability for what happened during the Holocaust. Not at all.

The problem that we have today w/Israel is because, after the war, the Allies still didn't want Jews in Europe: get them out, dump them somewhere, stick them w/the Arabs. A lot of the mess that was made in the Middle East could have been avoided. OK - send the Jews there. BUT - make 2 countries w/Jerusalem as an independent and open city-state, put in troops to keep the peace, and pay the Arabs to move out and Jews to move in. But, no, that would have been too reasonable. Instead, an order was handed down from on high, and the kikes and the sandniggers would have to live w/it - and so would everybody else, though nobody realized it till it was too late.

[Ferrus]

You've got the Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Borough Park who are against Israel and who are always in trouble for supporting the Palestinians. But the news doesn't tell people about that
Ah yes I knew about this. Something which is interesting is that Orthodox Jews, not indeed just Ultra-Orthodox Jews were, prior to the Second World War largely in opposition to a Jewish state and Zionism. Ironically most of the early Zionists were not religious at all, many were practically Marxists, which is why the USSR tried to court Israel into its sphere immediately after 1948, but after realising it to be closely tied to the USA it then switched its support to Eygpt and the secular leader Nassar, who was despised by the West, whose very legacy now however is being propped up by his old enemies against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. History is full of many ironies it would seem.

The Swedish were quite clear and concise in informing the Allies of what was going on - and the Allies had it from the Russians and from the Resistance.
As well as the aerial photography, allied air raids were know to have attacked concentration camps by mistake on several occasions, which does very much suggest they were in range of view.

Instead, an order was handed down from on high, and the kikes and the sandniggers would have to live w/it - and so would everybody else, though nobody realized it till it was too late.
Yes... the situation there was a mess largely because no one had a grip on it. The British government in many respects bears the most responsibility for the current situation - the British and French governments wanted nice peaceful semi-independent regimes from the mandates given to them by the league of nations in 1919 which would provide money spinners. This probably would have worked, to an extent, except for Palestine. The attitude of the British government to both sides was rather like, appropriately, Pontius Pilate to Christ. They tried to appease both sides and fell between two stalls. This generated hatred on both sides - the Jews who felt tricked after the Balfour declaration and the Palestinians who had been given undertakings to fight the Turks (albeit only an elite really did). The main reason the British government didn't allow Jews into Palestine - and was wary to do so till 1945 was because they did not want to enflame the tensions of the Arab revolt which was draining so much of the British army - though fortunately so, for they avoided the Battle of France in 1940 and were able to fight in North Africa.

Paying the Arabs to move would have been sensible. I'm not sure it would have worked though - the Palestinians, quite understandably, considered it their home, they had lived there since the 8th century. I wonder what many Americans and Canadians would say if the aborigine population of North America told them all to pack their bags for Europe as they used to live in the place. The Mufti of Jerusalem would brook no agreement, he rejected the original plan on principle, though in hindsight he would probably have caused the Palestinians a lot less misery had he agreed with it. But, still, it was a matter of principle, and he thought an armed Jewish attack was impossible. After all, the Zionists were fairly weak and scattered. They conducted, again a historical irony which so many forget, a terrorist operation against British rule, most noticibly the King David Hotel. They wanted 'Greater Israel' -especially Jerusalem. Not letting the Jews there in the first place, or better, not letting them feel they had to move would have been the most sensible solution - a guilt I think shared by the entire continent of Europe and not singularly the Germans as some would suggest. Ah well.

I hope you are aware that he considered British to be Aryan and wanted UK to be his ally.
He considered the English to be Aryan, not the 'Celtic' populations - actually the English domination of the British Isles and the empire was to him part of a 'proof' of Aryan supremacy. But yes, even in his bunker he was hoping he could convince British and American forces to ally with him against the newly powerful USSR.

[demagogic_schizoid]

:rolleyes:
Hitler had no war aims against Britain until Britain declared war on his country. Nice job, Britain! I hope you are aware that he considered British to be Aryan and wanted UK to be his ally.

So we were supposed to trust Hitler not to invade us, after his continued promises to not keep on with the exact expansionist policies which he then carried out? The Nazis may well at some point have tried to invade Britain, if we dared go against their wishes. There is no telling what they may have done, and any agreement they entered into was not worth the paper it was written on. The situation was very dangerous and unpredictable and I think we were right to defeat them when we could.

The point, in relation to George Orwell's quote, is quite simple. Pacifists across the world today, or at the very least the developed world, are almost certainly better off because of the defeat of the Nazis.



What believes? The belief of imposing liberalism worldwide or expansing British sphere of world influence? (Never mind the fact that Britain actually lost much of its world influence as a result of that war rather than gaining any)
If those people cared about democracy or liberalism so much, why would they go to war to defend a country which isn't even democratic (Poland, not UK)?

I didn't say anything about liberalism or democracy. Perhaps their beliefs were communist. Perhaps they were strongly nationalist. Perhaps they were liberals, or socialists, or capitalists, or simply people who saw that what the Nazis were doing was a greater evil than an existing system which they already opposed. Or perhaps they believed Britain had the right to rule the world, and not Germany. It's irrelevant what those beliefs are. I'm simply saying that people will fight and die for ideas, not just narrow self-interest. Whether or not you like their ideas is a different matter.

either way, what brought these people together, momentarily, was anti-nazism - fighting against something, not fighting for something - either for practical or ideological reasons.


Reverse the Versailles, unite Germans in one country, invade Poland, invade USSR, settle the area with Germans, move Jews out of Europe somewhere beyond the ural mountains. That's the jist of the plan summed up in one sentence.

Right, and most people in Europe would probably be considerably worse off as a result. Including Britain. Having your neighbours under Nazi rule is somewhat different to having your neighbours under social democrat or liberal capitalist governments. Purely "not being invaded" doesn't mean a country will not be affected by foreign affairs.

One more thing Kami: please try to remember the original Orwell quote about pacifism, and abjuring violence, which this conversation is all about. Orwell, like me, was talking about people who actively make a point of deploring all violence on moral grounds, rather than nihilists who simply don't care about anything enough to fight (nihilists are almost never worth arguing with). The moral dilemma is quite clear: if you propose "peace" as the answer to the worlds problems, how do you reconcile that with the fact that what peace does exist was often established by and/or upheld by violence; either upheld by the threat of violence used to protect the status quo from a more violent alternative, or established using violence to replace a previous system with a more peaceful alternative.

[apple]

Well yes I guess that makes it a little strange.


:rolleyes:
Hitler had no war aims against Britain until Britain declared war on his country. Nice job, Britain! I hope you are aware that he considered British to be Aryan and wanted UK to be his ally.

If I remember correctly, it's because Hitler did not honor the treaty to refrain from attacking Poland that he made with Churchill.

Churchill came back to England, triumphant, and was made to look like an idiot when Hitler went ahead with the invasion plans. During a time of war, when treaties cannot be honored, then a country living underneath a rule of nihilism means that no alliances can be made and has to made an example of.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Churchill came back to England, triumphant, and was made to look like an idiot

nah, that was Chamberlain. Churchill, had long been advocating a hard line with Hitler.

Though Chamberlain is remembered as a fool, his appeasement actually bought valuable time, and if we had fought the Nazis earlier, we'd probably have lost. So both Churchill and Chamberlain served their purposes.

[apple]

nah, that was Chamberlain. Churchill, had long been advocating a hard line with Hitler.

Though Chamberlain is remembered as a fool, his appeasement actually bought valuable time, and if we had fought the Nazis earlier, we'd probably have lost. So both Churchill and Chamberlain served their purposes.

You're right. :) My highschool history lessons are a bit fuzzy. Although, I'm not quite certain why you believe England would've lost if they had fought earlier. The English are charming, civilized brutes with a good head for military strategy. The sun never sets on the British Empire, right?

[demagogic_schizoid]

You're right. :) My highschool history lessons are a bit fuzzy. Although, I'm not quite certain why you believe England would've lost if they had fought earlier.

umm...I read it somewhere...a comedian called David Mitchell, when asked "how do you know that" once said "I don't have a source for that. I know a lot of things. If I knew how I know everything I know, then I'd only have room in my brain for half as much knowledge"...I'm going to use that "cop-out" answer here. ;)

We need Ferrus around to clear questions like this up, he's more the history man than me.


The sun never sets on the British Empire, right?

True, the sun can't set on something on which it never dawns.

[Metamorphosis]

The moral dilemma is quite clear: if you propose "peace" as the answer to the worlds problems, how do you reconcile that with the fact that what peace does exist was often established by and/or upheld by the thread of, violence, used to protect the status quo from a more violent alternative, or to establish a more peaceful alternative to a previous system.

This reminds me of the movie Equilibrium (I think that's the one I'm thinking of). I would choose conflict over peace that exists because of an immensely strong government and a completely subjugated populace.

[LongSilence]

True, Hitler was indeed rather dismayed when Britain joined in 'to help out France and Poland'. It's known he would have rather liked to have had Britain and Germany stand side by side as Aryan Empires spanning the globe. But even a Britain driven solely by its own protective interests couldn't very well entertain such a thought [not to mention our own global trade and filial ties: after all, they couldn't let just anyone beat and conquer the French if it wasn't them personally]. A Germany possessing dominion over mainland Europe and thus influence over its colonies would be more than just a comparative empire- it would be an unacceptable threat. And that would be before it may have turned its head to the USSR and eventually brought it to its knees if it was able to give it largely its undivided attention.

Britain, and indeed all of the European 'powers', have always had to maintain a protective vested interest in keeping the balance of power stable for a great deal of history. Besides, what else could Britain have done? Trusted the intentions of Adolf Hitler? Even if it could have tolerated the immense loss of power allowing Germany to achieve its Imperial aims would it be able to expect any leniency? After all, its not like it wasn't blameless in the Versailles Treaty and its also not the least attractive little island in the world for any would-be conqueror.

Fact is- with weapons of war improving as they were not even the US could practice a policy of Isolationism and remain untouched. Furthermore, imagine if Britain hadn't come in and at least managed to achieve the feat of containing and wearing down the Axis Juggernaut. Also Poland may not have been democratic but in the minds of the 'democratic' at least they were practicing wholesale slaughter of civilians they were not at war with.

Which brings me to the point about the Allies knowing about the ongoing Holocaust. Omnirook, how much do you believe the Allies could have done to stop it before the War was over? I guess more commando squads and resistance could have been charged with disrupting the executions but as you suggest thats not the most economical use of resources when "winning the war" could arguably be achieved more quickly with the destruction of industry and communications. And other than defeating the Nazis completely there was no real way to stop Hitler having his Jews killed. There's no need to stress that the Allied Leaders weren't disgusted by the Holocaust- they probably were: its not like they said: "Hey, lets keep Hitler occupied! Send him all our Jews too!"

[Kami]

He considered the English to be Aryan, not the 'Celtic' populations - actually the English domination of the British Isles and the empire was to him part of a 'proof' of Aryan supremacy.
There aren't many (if any at all) Celtic peoples in Britain or even Ireland today. Face it - the present day Scots and Irish are not Celtic since long time ago.


The Nazis may well at some point have tried to invade Britain, if we dared go against their wishes.
But you could say the same damn thing about any country in the world. Would you go to war against every country because of this?
For instance, you know, if you go against the wishes of USA - it might invade you.. Although it won't really have to invade because there are like several thousand US troops in Britain already. :)

This just doesn't make sense. Hitler clearly wrote in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book what he was going to do (ally with UK against USSR) and he did assign Ribbentrop to take care of this, yet Britain chose war instead.


I'm simply saying that people will fight and die for ideas, not just narrow self-interest.
So they would go and die hoping to enforce their ideas on other nations? Is this really honorable? Maybe you cound then interpret that guy's statement as refusal to enforce his ideas or the ideas of his country on other nations?


Right, and most people in Europe would probably be considerably worse off as a result. Including Britain.
Some would, but definately not Britain. Especially if you remember that both Chamberlain and Churchill repreatedly described USSR as the greatest threat facing Europe.

The real logic behind British declaration of war was very simple. It was the same exact knee-jerk logic that Europeans were accustomed to by centuries of warfare. It follows like this: "OMG our neighbor is getting to powerful, we need to do something about it!"



The moral dilemma is quite clear: if you propose "peace" as the answer to the worlds problems, how do you reconcile that with the fact that what peace does exist was often established by and/or upheld by violence; either upheld by the threat of violence used to protect the status quo from a more violent alternative, or established using violence to replace a previous system with a more peaceful alternative.
I do agree that peace is most often upheld by force, rather than "non-intervention" or non-violence, this is practically undisputable.. In the world history thus far, there were always nations more well off than other, there were always clashing ideas, be they of religious or political nature. Obviously the easiest way to make peace is to conquer everyone and force them to obey your ideas and respect the territorial status quo which you desire. You have to ask yourself whether this is the right way to make peace though.

[LongSilence]

You're right. :) My highschool history lessons are a bit fuzzy. Although, I'm not quite certain why you believe England would've lost if they had fought earlier. The English are charming, civilized brutes with a good head for military strategy. The sun never sets on the British Empire, right?

Britain and France were terribly unprepared for war around 1935. It's only when Hitler began making his moves in Austria and Czechoslovakia that their Armed Forces started to have their production stepped up. Of course it also gave Germany time to build up their forces too but arguably compared with Britain and France they already had a people and economy that was geared for war soon after Hitler had come to power. And with the USSR out of the picture at the start of the War [who were too also building up their own industry at a tremendous rate with Stalin's Five Year Plans] although an earlier start might have meant Germany had more enemies to contend with it may well have meant that they dealt with them quicker.

Who knows? But you should never underestimate the force of a people fervently following an ideology primed for warfare. Britain could well have been overwhelmed itself in the Battle of Britain if Hitler hadn't ordered that the Luftwaffe change its tactics from just attacking Airfields to also going for bombing raids of the major cities.

[Metamorphosis]

Obviously the easiest way to make peace is to conquer everyone and force them to obey your ideas and respect the territorial status quo which you desire. You have to ask yourself whether this is the right way to make peace though.

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell

[Kami]

The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it. - George Orwell
Orwell is right once again. (Though I don't realy like the guy that much anyway)

[demagogic_schizoid]

But you could say the same damn thing about any country in the world. Would you go to war against every country because of this?

You couldn't say the same thing abut every country in the world. Norway isn't going to invade Britain if we refuse to go along with its plans for a 1000 year empire.


For instance, you know, if you go against the wishes of USA - it might invade you.. Although it won't really have to invade because there are like several thousand US troops in Britain already. :)

The USA won't invade Britain in our lifetimes,, I garuantee it.


This just doesn't make sense. Hitler clearly wrote in Mein Kampf and in his Second Book what he was going to do (ally with UK against USSR) and he did assign Ribbentrop to take care of this, yet Britain chose war instead.

But what if it wasn't in our interests to align with him against the USSR? Why should the UK just do whatever Hitler says, simply to avoid war with him?


So they would go and die hoping to enforce their ideas on other nations? Is this really honorable? Maybe you cound then interpret that guy's statement as refusal to enforce his ideas or the ideas of his country on other nations?

This is the incoherency of pacifism set clear. You oppose "imposing your ideas", even when not imposing them allows someone else to impose their own even worse ideas. You oppose imposing your ideas even when imposing them saves lives by defeating a more violent regime than your own.

If pacifists in the non-Nazi countries in WW2 had got their way, I don't doubt there would have been a heavier price to pay in terms of casuatlies and resultant living standards than that which was paid in the war. The economic power of a succesful Nazi Empire in Europe would have been immense. It's stupid to dismiss the idea that they would ever try to invade Britain, under an increasingly insane lader, or perhaps under his predecessors. It's stupid to imagine that less people would have died if the Nazis had simply been allowed to invade whoever they wanted, unopposed (did it ever occur to you that part of Hitler's reasons for not wanting war with Britain were that it was not worth the effort - put pacifists in charge of Britain, and might decide that on balance, it would be worth his while after all). So the result of pacifism being succesful in non-nazi countries would have been more deaths and more violence, therefore it's a self-defeating ideology.


Some would, but definately not Britain. Especially if you remember that both Chamberlain and Churchill repreatedly described USSR as the greatest threat facing Europe.

Clearly Churchill didn't believe this when he allied with them to defeat Nazi Germany.


The real logic behind British declaration of war was very simple. It was the same exact knee-jerk logic that Europeans were accustomed to by centuries of warfare. It follows like this: "OMG our neighbor is getting to powerful, we need to do something about it!"

What's wrong with that? If a genocidal regime was taking over Europe today and steadily encroaching towards my country, whilst massacring civilians in every country it coquered, I would think this too.


In the world history thus far, there were always nations more well off than other, there were always clashing ideas, be they of religious or political nature. Obviously the easiest way to make peace is to conquer everyone and force them to obey your ideas and respect the territorial status quo which you desire. You have to ask yourself whether this is the right way to make peace though.

What you are describing is exactly what the Nazis were doing. How do you hope to defeat such a process if not by force? and just because the people resisting it may have been hypocrites is entirely irrelevant. If you live under a crappy system, it doesn't mean you can't resist when someone tries to force a system on you with all the bad bits of the current system emphasised, and the good bits mainly removed. It really is quite simple. War against the Nazis saved lives and ensured the victory of a less evil system. Someone who refused to be part of that war has nothing to be proud of.

Let's say the thing you describe is happening today? How the hell would you then tell people suffering from it not to fight against it? Pacifism is completely untenable. From the day you're born you're coerced by the implicit threat of violence, if you push against the boundaries of those making the threat,t hey will use violence, and the only way to change those boundaries fundamentally is by violence, hence history's many revolutions which created the modern world. We would still be living under the feudal system if the likes of Oliver Cromwell had accepted the doctrine of pacifism. If your own leaders had been pacifists in WW2, you would probably not have been born.

[Kami]

The USA won't invade Britain in our lifetimes,, I garuantee it.
Only because Britain probably isn't going to go significantly against US wishes.
Do you not get the point? It's pretty simple. Every country with significant economic and/or military power represents a potential threat to Britain. Your perception of this threat is purely subjective.
Objectively speaking though, Germany was much less of a threat to Britain than US is today, because Germany did not have such huge military or a huge economy and also it did not have troops and military bases in Britain itself.


Norway isn't going to invade Britain if we refuse to go along with its plans for a 1000 year empire.
What in the world are you talking about? Germany didn't declare war on Britain because Britain refused to go along with its plans for a 1000 year empire, it was Britain which declared war on Germany and exposed itself to invasion. What you just wrote did not make any sense whatever way you try to look at it.


Why should the UK just do whatever Hitler says, simply to avoid war with him?
No actually staying neutral (e.g doing nothing) would have been enough to avoid war and bloodshed in Western Europe.


even when not imposing them allows someone else to impose their own even worse ideas.
First of all, not worse ideas, just ideas. "worse" and "better" is a failed absolutist judgement. Second of all, they aren't trying to impose them on you at all, so why would you care?


If a genocidal regime was taking over Europe today and steadily encroaching towards my country, whilst massacring civilians in every country it coquered, I would think this too.
If you equate yourself with British government, then you'd commit a logical fallcy by thinking so, because nothing of what Germany did up to British declaration of war was against British interest. (Unless you think that Poland was in "British sphere of interest", which probably isn't the case)


What you are describing is exactly what the Nazis were doing.
Actually no, Germany did not want to impose National Socialism on everyone - only specific countries in Eastern Europe, compare this to US today, which clearly and undeniably wants to impose Liberalism (and specifically the US understanding of Liberalism) on everyone in the world.


From the day you're born you're coerced by the implicit threat of violence, if you push against the boundaries of those making the threat,t hey will use violence, and the only way to change those boundaries fundamentally is by violence
Shouldn't you use violence only if it was used against you (and you weren't responsible for inciting it in the first place)?
Your perception of "threat" is very subjective, as you yourself just proved, so how can you propose to use violence against a "threat"?

[LongSilence]

Like I said in my previous post kami- For Britain to have chosen to allow Germany to fulfill its imperial goals would have meant an intolerable loss of face, influence and security. A huge amount of what Germany planned was very much against British interests: first of all, the French were allies and they were jointly bound to uphold the Versailles Treaty. A certain amount of Germanic freedom could be possibly granted but one important factor was that the Treaty ensured no country would change the European boundaries [and this included France]. Appeasement was a policy that assumed that a certain amount of give and take could be allowed as long as it did not result in any significant shift in power.

Secondly, Nazi Germany was a regime cast very much in the Fascist mold and, just like Communist USSR, would be a very threatening neighbour to any 'liberal' democratic country. Such extremes on both the Left and Right best maintain their economic and social vigour and control by waging international war: it gives the people a very obvious goal to put their efforts towards and gives them less to time to ask questions.

On the other hand, Liberalism inherently does not sit well with whipping people up for a new aggressive campaign of conquest. That's why there was such a big debacle about the WMD's in Iraq. An intensely Fascist country does not really need such persuasions- if they got the manpower and the other guy looks weaker then there is no real reason not to go to war [at least, that was the case before things went Nuclear]. And if you talk with many Americans they'll tell you that politcally America is by no means all that liberal at all right now: they'll probably even say that the current government is veering ever closer to the extreme Right.

In short, it would have been grossly trusting and horrifically humbling for Britain to have sought to sit by and watch as Germany took Europe and perhaps crushed USSR. Such a Britain would really have had no future other than perhaps briefly as a vassal to an unstoppable Fascist Empire- no doubt they'd soon be called to account for their relaxed tolerance of Jews and weak application of their supposed Aryan superiority.

And by the way, overlooking its forays in the Middle East as errant offshoots of 9/11 how much violence do you believe the US is overtly employing to "impose" Liberalism?

[Kami]

would have meant an intolerable loss of face, influence and security
First of all, Britain could have easily denounced the Versailles if it wanted to. No loss of influence or prestige there. And it did that historically, however setting a limit forbidding Germany to expand after a certain point. That was a failure. And comapre that to how much influence and prestige Britain lost as a result of World War 2. The whole entire British Empire collapsed thanks largely to American and Soviet efforts which came into existance mostly in WW2. That looks like a significantly larger loss to me.
Second of all, only a British nationalist should care about that, not an average Joe from Scottish farmland.

As for objective security - again, compare that to how much security Britain sacrificed allowing US fleet to grow so much larger than RN and station American troops in Britain. Yes, allowing Germany to run bersek in Eastern Europe would have been a long term objective threat to British security, but infinitely less so than the complete US takeover.


Secondly, Nazi Germany was a regime cast very much in the Fascist mold and, just like Communist USSR, would be a very threatening neighbour to any 'liberal' democratic country
Why? Can you objectively explain why Nazi government is a fundamental threat just for being Nazi?


Such extremes on both the Left and Right best maintain their economic and social vigour and control by waging international war: it gives the people a very obvious goal to put their efforts towards and gives them less to time to ask questions.
This is true to the same exact degree for every government, not just extreme left or right.


On the other hand, Liberalism inherently does not sit well with whipping people up for a new aggressive campaign of conquest.
Oh yes it does. If a weaker country refuses to open up its markets to your giant companies or refuses to trade you resources at the price you want, or in general refuses to obey to your will, hostility is ensured. Whether it will escalate into war or not depends on a lot of things, but it has a high chance of becomming war.


An intensely Fascist country does not really need such persuasions- if they got the manpower and the other guy looks weaker then there is no real reason not to go to war
Or you could just send your companies over and let them harvest resources for you without any war. Germany began its campaign in Europe not for resources at all.


they'll probably even say that the current government is veering ever closer to the extreme Right.
And they'll be mostly wrong. The fact that Bush's PR campaign about WMDs happened to fail doesn't mean that US is any more or less liberal. It's just sometimes US succeeds in branding its war campaigns as freedom versus tyranny or whatever, and sometimes it doesn't. In this case it didn't really succeed that much, but then again you have the story of how presumably brutal Saddam's government was and how the US-backed regime brought freedom and stuff.


no doubt they'd soon be called to account for their relaxed tolerance of Jews and weak application of their supposed Aryan superiority.
No, Hitler had absolutely no complaints about British or American treatment of Jews and other minorities until they declared war on him. In fact, in Mein Kampf Hitler actually praised the US treatment of minorities and considered it exemplary.


how much violence do you believe the US is overtly employing to "impose" Liberalism?
A lot, but more specifically - as much as it wants. The primary focus though is not to impose Liberalism, but Market economy. So US can tolerate a brutal dictatorship anywhere in the world as long as it is business-friendly. But nonetheless a huge effort has been done to promote liberalism and democracy especially after the end of Cold War rendered support for dictatorsips (mostly) unnecessary. I could give you a huge list of US military interventions in the past few years if you are not yet familiar with it.

[omnirook]

Ah yes I knew about this. Something which is interesting is that Orthodox Jews, not indeed just Ultra-Orthodox Jews were, prior to the Second World War largely in opposition to a Jewish state and Zionism. Ironically most of the early Zionists were not religious at all, many were practically Marxists, which is why the USSR tried to court Israel into its sphere immediately after 1948, but after realising it to be closely tied to the USA it then switched its support to Eygpt and the secular leader Nassar, who was despised by the West, whose very legacy now however is being propped up by his old enemies against the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. History is full of many ironies it would seem.

Yeah - there were all those kubbutzes (spelling?) - those communes, the communistic camps that did all the hard grunt work of turning a patch of sand into a fertile exporter of produce. Those people had balls! Not only was their adopted home inhospitable, their neighbors were hostile ... As an agnostic, of course, I cannot go along w/God having given any piece of land to anybody, but there is an historical case for saying that the Jews lived in Palestine. My problem is - it's moot. There's an historical case for saying that the Algonquins lived on the east coast of the United States. So? They're not getting it back. Period. To make a Jewish homeland was an exercise in insanity - it was anti-Semitism at its worst - yes, worst. Why was it worse than the Holocaust? Think about it. The Holocaust was an attempt to exterminate the Jews. Everyone should have been horrified (many were - but not enough) - so horrified that nobody should have had any further thoughts of doing other than welcoming the Jews as members of society. Instead, the idea of getting rid of them by dumping them in Palestine was hatched - this was doing the shit - and getting to wear a good guy badge. True - many of the Jews were eager to go to Israel - BUT would they have been as eager if they had felt that now they would be welcome in Europe? I don't think so. Remember - the Jews of Europe, at least of Germany and the Balkans, thought of themselves as Europeans. They thought of themselves as Germans (and, really, after so many centuries, they were!). The real solution was, as you indicated, accepting the Jews as members of society. Catholics and Protestants have learned to live in the same countries, so Catholics, Protestants, and Jews can learn to live in the same countries. You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. And we'll leave each other alone.


As well as the aerial photography, allied air raids were know to have attacked concentration camps by mistake on several occasions, which does very much suggest they were in range of view.

Yes... the situation there was a mess largely because no one had a grip on it. The British government in many respects bears the most responsibility for the current situation - the British and French governments wanted nice peaceful semi-independent regimes from the mandates given to them by the league of nations in 1919 which would provide money spinners. This probably would have worked, to an extent, except for Palestine. The attitude of the British government to both sides was rather like, appropriately, Pontius Pilate to Christ. They tried to appease both sides and fell between two stalls. This generated hatred on both sides - the Jews who felt tricked after the Balfour declaration and the Palestinians who had been given undertakings to fight the Turks (albeit only an elite really did). The main reason the British government didn't allow Jews into Palestine - and was wary to do so till 1945 was because they did not want to enflame the tensions of the Arab revolt which was draining so much of the British army - though fortunately so, for they avoided the Battle of France in 1940 and were able to fight in North Africa.

Paying the Arabs to move would have been sensible. I'm not sure it would have worked though - the Palestinians, quite understandably, considered it their home, they had lived there since the 8th century. I wonder what many Americans and Canadians would say if the aborigine population of North America told them all to pack their bags for Europe as they used to live in the place. The Mufti of Jerusalem would brook no agreement, he rejected the original plan on principle, though in hindsight he would probably have caused the Palestinians a lot less misery had he agreed with it. But, still, it was a matter of principle, and he thought an armed Jewish attack was impossible. After all, the Zionists were fairly weak and scattered. They conducted, again a historical irony which so many forget, a terrorist operation against British rule, most noticibly the King David Hotel. They wanted 'Greater Israel' -especially Jerusalem. Not letting the Jews there in the first place, or better, not letting them feel they had to move would have been the most sensible solution - a guilt I think shared by the entire continent of Europe and not singularly the Germans as some would suggest. Ah well.

He considered the English to be Aryan, not the 'Celtic' populations - actually the English domination of the British Isles and the empire was to him part of a 'proof' of Aryan supremacy. But yes, even in his bunker he was hoping he could convince British and American forces to ally with him against the newly powerful USSR.

Hitler was very, very well-read in history. Even those who hated him could not deny that he was well and widely read, that he had his information at his finger-tips - which is why the whole thing has always been fishy to me ... Hitler had to know that the English were an amalgam - prehistoric peoples, Celts, Romans, others from the Roman Empire - Gauls (Celts), Greeks, Germans - and then the Angles and the Saxons and then the Vikings and then the francophone Vikings, the Normans - and all the while small groups of "others," the French, the Dutch, Italian merchants, Spanairds, Flemmings, etc. In short, not until the US, would a nation be such a hodge-podge of different peoples. How could Hitler have considered them Aryan? ... I read an interesting book about Himmler once, called, appropriately, "Himmler." The book went into a great deal of detail about the in-fighting among the NAZI leadership about how to proceed. Goering wanted to go forward w/business as usual, keeping Germany open to foreign investment, etc. Himmler argued for making Germany self-sufficient. Hitler wavered between the two, choosing Himmler's vision in the end - and that, more than anything, was the cause of World War II. Nationalizing the German economy and fucking American and British companies out of billions of dollars was the real reason why ... I don't know if it was true. BUT - I'm never satisfied w/taking the official history's word for - anything.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Only because Britain probably isn't going to go significantly against US wishes.

It's because the relationship between Britain and the USA is different to that between Britain and Nazi Germany. We'd been at war with Germany only 30 years before the start of World War 2 for christs sake, we had completely humiliated them, we had imposed the Treaty of Versailles on them. Britain and the USA have no such history. Also, the US electorate would not be prepared to support a war against the British, for cultural reasons, I'm pretty sure of it, short of us actually attacking them first. Considering the Nazis were expanding their way across Europe and towards the Channel, it's ridiculous to say the same about Germany, just because of what is in Mein Kampf. Britain was an industrial power with valuable coal reserves, the Nazi Empire would have outlived hitler, and it would have gone beyond the constraints of is initial plans and "promises" (which were proved to be worthless). The more powerful they had become, the more able they'd have been to take whatever they wanted, from whoever they wanted, and looking at the map and the direction of their expansion, Britain could well have been next. So, in order to not live in a constantly fearful "peace", we fought them, we won, and Europe and Britain are better off as a result.


Do you not get the point? It's pretty simple. Every country with significant economic and/or military power represents a potential threat to Britain.

but yet, the specifics of each situation are different. Germany was conquering europe and expanding in our direction. No-one is doing that now. If they were, I think Britain would fight them, and would be right to do so.


Objectively speaking though, Germany was much less of a threat to Britain than US is today, because Germany did not have such huge military or a huge economy and also it did not have troops and military bases in Britain itself.

Ummm, as it kept empire building, surely it would become more powerful? And besides of capability to invade us, ideologically, the Nazis would be more likely to.


What in the world are you talking about? Germany didn't declare war on Britain because Britain refused to go along with its plans for a 1000 year empire, it was Britain which declared war on Germany and exposed itself to invasion.

We declared war on them because they kept breaking the agreements we'd made with them. And if you read what Iw rote, I simply said that if at any point our interests clashed with theirs, they may well have attacked us; so constantly caving into them would have been the price of "peace". So instead we fought them, and won. What's the problem?


No actually staying neutral (e.g doing nothing) would have been enough to avoid war and bloodshed in Western Europe.

See above.



First of all, not worse ideas, just ideas. "worse" and "better" is a failed absolutist judgement.

I don't have time for this Moral Philosophy 101 nonsense. "Worse" and "better" are judgements I'm prepared to make, and which any sane person in this situation would make. Hitler was worse than Churchill. Nazism was worse than liberal capitalism or social democracy. The British and Americans ideologies at the time were not genocidal, the Nazis were. The Britsh and Americans, by winning the war, saved lives in the countries they occupied compared to what the Nazis would have done.


Second of all, they aren't trying to impose them on you at all, so why would you care?

You keep missing the point of the argument. We're talking about pacifists for fucks sake. Pacifists proffess to care about other people, this is why they actively protest against wars which may not directly affect them, they propose pacifism as the path to peace. I don't care to argue with you, someone who apparently cannot envisage the concept of "better" or "worse" and who seems to believe only in narrow self-interest; what I am doing here is arguing with pacifists, with whom I share some presumed common ground; the desire to see casualties and deaths at the hand of war and opression minimised across the world. Some people care about other people I guess, at least on some level. It's a human instinct. If you don't, I don't care to waste my time explaining it to you. Let's just concentrate on showing how pacifism doesn't provide the answers which it claims to provide; ie the replacement of the existing order with a more peaceful alternative. The point is that if the Nazis had not been defeated by force, a more violent system would have prevailed in Western Europe. Find me one historian, with a modicum of credibility (ie not a holocaust denier) who disputes this.


If you equate yourself with British government, then you'd commit a logical fallcy by thinking so, because nothing of what Germany did up to British declaration of war was against British interest.

I odn't equate myself with the British government. I made it quite simple. In the long run, life for British people would have been worse if we'd had to continually deal with a Nazi Empire on our doorstep; and life for pacifists would be worse because they would have to live with the fact that by their country not resisting the Nazis, more deaths had been caused; surely the exact opposite of what a pacifist wants.


Actually no, Germany did not want to impose National Socialism on everyone - only specific countries in Eastern Europe, compare this to US today, which clearly and undeniably wants to impose Liberalism (and specifically the US understanding of Liberalism) on everyone in the world.

Is this why the US aids the Egyptian government, why it backs the House of Saud, why it aids the Pakistani government, why it backs Gadaffi in Libya? Are these regimes liberal? I think you're making this up as you go along, and besides, it's irrelevant, because the US has not, in 60 years as a superpower, killed as many people as the Nazis killed. If you want to resist the US, by all means do so, but don't imagine you'd have been better off under the Nazis. That's called cutting off your nose to spite your face.


Shouldn't you use violence only if it was used against you (and you weren't responsible for inciting it in the first place)?

That sounds like a "subjective absolutist judgement", and I think it's nonsense. If I saw a woman being raped, shouldn't I use violence to stop it. If I woke up and saw a burglar leaving with my tv, shouldn't I use force to restrain him?


Your perception of "threat" is very subjective, as you yourself just proved, so how can you propose to use violence against a "threat"?

You're turning World War 2 into a mere mental exercise, a philosophical and logical abstraction. In the real world, you live or die by your subjective definitions -based on the inctricate specifics of each situation - of what is a threat or not. Looking at the nature of Nazi Germany, I think we were right to defeat it. And I don't know of any credible historian who disagrees.

[Ferrus]

There aren't many (if any at all) Celtic peoples in Britain or even Ireland today. Face it - the present day Scots and Irish are not Celtic since long time ago.
Depends on what you mean by Celtic - and if it has any meaning (beyond nationalist movements that have emerged since the 18th century), which is unlikely - but from the Nazi Weltschauung, the Scots, Welsh and Irish were not Aryan.

YeNationalizing the German economy and fucking American and British companies out of billions of dollars was the real reason why ... I don't know if it was true. BUT - I'm never satisfied w/taking the official history's word for - anything.
Hmm, there is a possibility here, though remember the US didn't declare war on Germany, it was vice-versa (albeit the US did put sanctions on Germany) and Britain and France seemed pretty desperate to avoid war in 1938. One of history's great debates is whether Chamberlain and the other appeasers where 'guilty men' - the left seeing them as virtually fascist fellow travellers, the right seeing them as weak fools pandering to pacificism. However, war over the Sudetenland in 1938 would probably have been more damaging - Britain's military was still suffering from cut-backs in the 20's and early 30's, the Dominions - Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand - may not have joined the fight and the population in Britain and France would have probably been less willing to fight against Germany in 1938. I don't think Chamberlain had much choice in 1938... Churchill's decision not to seek peace in 1940 is the essence of his legend, but I suspect had Britain been invaded it could have been very different. Something not widely know is how close the RAF came to defeat in the early stages of the Battle of Britain - the Luftwaffe was pummelling the airfields, and the RAF was close to collapse. A solitary bombing raid on Berlin ocurred that year - Hitler was incensed and ordered retalitory strikes. Which brought largely to an end the mutal agreement not to bomb civilians at the start of the war - though the effect of doing so was far, far overrated by military experts. It is quite possibly the British government deliberately provoked Hitler into ordering the bombing of British civilians so as to protect the RAF air fields. It is hard to say for sure because the secret papers are unlikely to be released for another 40-50 years. In any case, even with the Luftwaffe performing badly in 1941, had Hitler chosen to wait another year, to 1942-3 he could have won a war of attrition and removed the naval and aerial obstacles to an invasion of Britain. But he was too impatient to fight Communism and the Red Bear.

I think I would argue Autarky possibly expedited WW2 in another way - it was terribly inefficient. Hitler was pumping lots of state resources into the military and trying to covert coal into oil (which is very expensive). The result of which was that he needed to expand his economic focus in order to keep the population happy, and possibly to gain the resources of Eastern Europe, which of course was a direct challenge to the Western European establishment. Certainly economic imperatives formed Nazi war aims - the catastrophic seige of Stalingrad emerged from the need to capture the Baku oil supplies in Azerbaijan, by way of the Caucausian mountains, and Hitler hoped capturing North Africa would lead to securing oil supplies in the Middle East.

Although, I'm not quite certain why you believe England would've lost if they had fought earlier
As I explained, after WW1, the government resorted to retrenchment and orthodox government spending policies, trying to cut back money. This fitted nicely with the vaguely pacifist sympathies that obtained post-WW1, and so the military was cut back significantly, till rearmament, which was provoked largely by the German reoccupation of the Rhineland, and Italy's exit from the 'Stresa front' and into the German sphere of influence - into which the Japanese were moving, to a lesser extent, too. But it didn't begin in earnest till 1937, and was even faster by 1938. Britain lacked proper radar in 1938, it had it in 1939, there was no conscription in 1938, by 1939 a draft had been instituted (for the first time in peace). The airforce was woefully short of planes, and especially up to date planes in 1938. Which was rectified somewhat. Something which wasn't corrected in that time, which should have been, was the armoured capacity of the British and French forces protecting the French border: the tanks were ridiculously outdated in contrast with the very powerful Panzers. Their ability to drive through the Arden forest meant that they could by-pass the French forces massed at the Maginot line and head straight to Paris, toppling the government. Another problem in the 'phony war' of 1939-40 was that the Belgian King refused entry to the Anglo-French forces, till the last minute, by which time it was far too late to raise proper defences for the country.

Remember - the Jews of Europe, at least of Germany and the Balkans, thought of themselves as Europeans. They thought of themselves as Germans (and, really, after so many centuries, they were!).
Absolutely - the Jewish influence on European society has been immense, even (ultimately) Christianity itself was a Jewish contrivance, and of course Jews were an integral element of the economy. I read a book called Yiddish Civilisation, on the Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and what constituted the old USSR. They effectively did have their own civilisation, their own language and their own home. They had no intention of moving to Israel unless the Messiah told them to do so. Sadly this had been destroyed, a whole civilisation, by the Holocaust and Israel. Many forget that Jews had been living throughout the Roman empire as traders since the Republican era, especially in Rome itself. And many who were sent to the camps were not made to feel welcome when they returned, in Poland, Germany, Austria and Hungury there were many reported cases of people simply taking over the properties that had been abandoned by those sent to death camps.

Apparently the Swiss banks also still hold vast stores of money that was stolen from Jewish populations by the Nazis across Europe and has never been returned. Hitler's closest relatives could in theory try to claim some of this, were it not likely that they would be assassinated for trying to do so.

The real solution was, as you indicated, accepting the Jews as members of society. Catholics and Protestants have learned to live in the same countries, so Catholics, Protestants, and Jews can learn to live in the same countries. You believe what you want. I'll believe what I want. And we'll leave each other alone.
I think it had become less of a religious issue by the 19th century and 20th century, though that formed an element of it. In the medieval era, European persecution of Jewry was almost exclusively of a religious nature - but by the 19th and 20th century, what had emerged was a new monster, intolerant nationalism. The resurgent nationalism (which has resulted in the modern patchwork of Europe) simply alienated Jews - and in the 19th century there were large numbers of them who did want to be a part of society and were somewhat middle class, even high society. One thinks of Benjamin Disraeli, or the Mendelssohn family or the Rothschilds. It was the new sense of nationalism, and half-baked ideas of racialism that made the situation intolerable for the Jewish population of Europe

[Kami]

We'd been at war with Germany only 30 years before the start of World War 2 for christs sake, we had completely humiliated them, we had imposed the Treaty of Versailles on them.
AND?... So you defeated them and humiliated them, now they've recovered and they don't even want to fight you any more, but YOU still want to fight them because you defeated them and humiliated them recently? How much sense does that make?


Considering the Nazis were expanding their way across Europe and towards the Channel,
It appears that your geography skills are lacking or something. Up to British declaration of war Germany expanded only in the OPPOSITE direction of the channel.


Britain was an industrial power with valuable coal reserves, the Nazi Empire would have outlived hitler, and it would have gone beyond the constraints of is initial plans and "promises"
Again, you could make the same exact point about any major power in the world. "The US Empire could outlive Roosevelt and then go beyond the constraints of its initial plans and promises!"


Germany was conquering europe and expanding in our direction.
First of all, once again, please look at the map. Unless you think that Britain is somehow located in Eastern Europe, you can't tell me Germany expanded in direction of Britain.
As for expansion per se - so what? Throughout the whole entire history of this planet some countries expanded while others shrunk, why did Britain have to do something about it? At the same time US was expanding its control and influence across the entire North and South American continents, and even overseas as well. Didn't seem to me like Britain cared much about that, did it?


ideologically, the Nazis would be more likely to.
Please substantiate this claim. Why would Nazi Germany be interested in invading neutral Britain? If "resources" is your answer, then why do you think US is less interested in resources than Germany?


We declared war on them because they kept breaking the agreements we'd made with them.
Duh, because these agreements forbade their further expansion. The whole point is why you made such agreements which forbade further expansion.


I simply said that if at any point our interests clashed with theirs, they may well have attacked us
Lolz, no shit! And if your interests clash with USA, they may attack you!
Consider this, the US really wants to attack Afghanistan (meaning REALLY wants to attack - US believes its survival depends on attacking Afghanistan), but Britain declares that it will guarantee Afghani sovereignty and it will fight on Afghani side if Afghanistan gets invaded.
Guess what happens to Britain in that case?


I don't have time for this Moral Philosophy 101 nonsense. "Worse" and "better" are judgements I'm prepared to make
I'd suggest you don't, because such judgement is simply silly. You are INTP after all, right? So why are you making such value judgements at all? You can't prove that any ideology is better or worse than any other and you know it, so why insist on labeling them as such? It is slightly annoying, you know.


We're talking about pacifists for fucks sake.
Not only. Now we are talking about WW2 as well. And it happens to be relevant actually.


Some people care about other people I guess
You know, even if we assume that the whole point of British foreign policy was to impose its ideology of "preventing bloodshed" anywhere in the world (which wasn't really the case, but still), even in that case the British foreign policy in they years preciding 1939 was a COMPLETE FAILURE. There were numerous ways that Britain could have prevented the war altogether and all the bloodshed that followed, but chose not to. (For instance, when Stalin proposed alliance to Britain in defence of Poland, but was rejected by Chamberalin.)


The point is that if the Nazis had not been defeated by force, a more violent system would have prevailed in Western Europe.
Is Germany considered by you to be part of Western Europe or not? If not, then this statement is false. If yes, then it is generally right, but violence is not a bad or good thing for me anyway.


surely the exact opposite of what a pacifist wants.
No, I don't think that it is the opposite of what a pacifist wants. A pacifist wants to prevent his country from going to war no matter what bloodshed is going on somewhere else in the world. That is pacifism.
A pacifist who advocates military intervention to prevent bloodshed somewhere else in the world is clearly not a pacifist at all.


Is this why the US aids the Egyptian government, why it backs the House of Saud, why it aids the Pakistani government, why it backs Gadaffi in Libya? Are these regimes liberal?
As I said in the next post which you probably haven't read since it wasn't directed specifically at you (and that is ok), US can tolerate business-friendly dictatorships around the world in general, yet US still tries to promote liberalism and democracy worldwide and that is undeniable.


If I saw a woman being raped, shouldn't I use violence to stop it.
Depends on your moral judgement. Using violence in case of simple rape may be a good idea, but in case of world politics it is entirely different.
Let's compare the example you brought up to what happened in that war:

You (Britain) went to fight to defend a stupid, arrogant, and agressive woman (Poland) from being raped by a bully (Germany) who wanted to be your friend. You weren't able to protect the woman from being raped at all whatsoever, in fact you waited for her to be raped and only then started fighting, but during the fight you made an alliance with another bully (USSR) who did most of the fighting for you, and your big brother (USA) who offered to help you. You've survived the fight against that first bully (Germany), but your bigger brother (USA) and the other bully (USSR) then joined together to brake your bones several times and make you a disabled person, so you lost your security and independence to your bigger brother (USA) who now protects you and tells you what to do, and you lost almost all of your assets and posessions to the other bully (USSR). On the other hand that stupid woman (Poland) who you wanted to protect got raped by/fell in love with the other bully (USSR) who you were initially in alliance with, and hated you and your bigger brother with passion. After 40 years of love for USSR, he finally died, so she now declares her eternal love for your bigger brother (USA) and has pictures of him all over the walls.

Sounds like a rather sad story, doesn't it? :)
Almost like a Russian saying "Мы хотели как лучше, но получилось как всегда". :)

[demagogic_schizoid]

AND?... So you defeated them and humiliated them, now they've recovered and they don't even want to fight you any more, but YOU still want to fight them because you defeated them and humiliated them recently? How much sense does that make?

You're twisting my words beyond recongition. I'm simply pointing out the differences between Britain's relationship with the USA, and it's relationship with Germany in 1939.



It appears that your geography skills are lacking or something. Up to British declaration of war Germany expanded only in the OPPOSITE direction of the channel.

I suggest you check where the Rhineland is on a map.


Again, you could make the same exact point about any major power in the world. "The US Empire could outlive Roosevelt and then go beyond the constraints of its initial plans and promises!"


But the US has never shown an inclination to attack white western Europeans. DDue to the nature of modern geo-politics and the perceptions of the modern electorate, it's extremely unlikely that this will happen in the conceivable future. Since world war 2, no two countries with a McDonald's have been at war. That's the way the world is going. I just don't see America ever attacking another developed country. It's pretty inconceivable.



As for expansion per se - so what? Throughout the whole entire history of this planet some countries expanded while others shrunk, why did Britain have to do something about it? At the same time US was expanding its control and influence across the entire North and South American continents, and even overseas as well. Didn't seem to me like Britain cared much about that, did it?

German expansion was worse for the world than American expansion, you know I think this. Like I said, the Nazis killed more people in their short reign than the Americans have in their whole time as superpower. Perhaps we should have opposed American expansion, but in terms of realpolitik, we couldn't oppose both American expansion and German expansion simultaneously with nay degree of succes. So we opposed the Germans instead. And I think we were right to. And we won. Rejoice! :)



Please substantiate this claim. Why would Nazi Germany be interested in invading neutral Britain? If "resources" is your answer, then why do you think US is less interested in resources than Germany?

See what I said above about different relationships between Britain and the US, about the nature of modern global capitalism, etc.


Duh, because these agreements forbade their further expansion. The whole point is why you made such agreements which forbade further expansion.

Because we didn't want Nazi Germany to become too powerful. I know you know this as you explained it yourself. I don't have a problem with this. The net result of us doing so was beneficial to western Europe.



I'd suggest you don't, because such judgement is simply silly. You are INTP after all, right? So why are you making such value judgements at all?

I'm an INTP and I can make value judgements. You calling my value judgements silly is a value judgement. We all make value judgements. To say Nazism is not worse for humanity than liberal capitalism is, to my mind, a lack of common sense, and something which an unbalanced INTP may be prone to, but hardly something which should be encouraged!


You can't prove that any ideology is better or worse than any other and you know it, so why insist on labeling them as such?

Like I said, it's an opinion. I'm allowed to have them, you know.




You know, even if we assume that the whole point of British foreign policy was to impose its ideology of "preventing bloodshed" anywhere in the world (which wasn't really the case, but still),

I'm not assuming that - I'm saying that if this was a by-product of British foreign policy, then nayone who desires these things should support British foreign policy, whatever it's actual objective.


even in that case the British foreign policy in they years preciding 1939 was a COMPLETE FAILURE.

It was far from perfect, but how was it a complete failure? Chamberlain bought valuable time - preceeding 1939 it's unlikely we'd have been able to defeat a Nazi invasion. I think appeasement was pretty much the only course open to us.

Now if you're talking about world war 2 and the Treaty of Versailles, then yes, the terms and conditions imposed on Germany did help the Nazis rise to power. I don't know if this was largely Britain's fault, as it was mainly the French who pushed for a hard-line, but yes, Britain was part of it. What's your point exactly?


There were numerous ways that Britain could have prevented the war altogether and all the bloodshed that followed, but chose not to. (For instance, when Stalin proposed alliance to Britain in defence of Poland, but was rejected by Chamberalin.)

Why would it have been good to prevent a war which preceeded the establishment of social democracy and lioberal capitalism in Western Europe, and made it one of the riches and peaceful parts of the world? You really think our lives would be better if we hadn't crushed the Nazis? This is simply outlandish. The war was a good thing. We could have avoided it, but the price would have been a Europe dominated by fascism - a less peaceful europe. Good going pacifists!


Is Germany considered by you to be part of Western Europe or not?

What definition of Western Europe excludes Germany?


If yes, then it is generally right, but violence is not a bad or good thing for me anyway.

I'm talking about the way that pacifism defeats its own objectives. I'm not out to convince you that violence is good or bad. there's no point arguing with someone who doesn't share the slightest common ground with me.


No, I don't think that it is the opposite of what a pacifist wants. A pacifist wants to prevent his country from going to war no matter what bloodshed is going on somewhere else in the world. That is pacifism.

Pacifism is the absolutist belief that violence is wrong in all circumstances. It transcends national boundaries.


A pacifist who advocates military intervention to prevent bloodshed somewhere else in the world is clearly not a pacifist at all.

Obviously. I didn't say otherwise. I simply said that as a result of their opinions being acted on, more people may die than died otherwise.



As I said in the next post which you probably haven't read since it wasn't directed specifically at you (and that is ok), US can tolerate business-friendly dictatorships around the world in general, yet US still tries to promote liberalism and democracy worldwide and that is undeniable.

To an extent. But you said it tries to enforce them in every country in the world, which is completely different.



You (Britain) went to fight to defend a stupid, arrogant, and agressive woman (Poland) from being raped by a bully (Germany) who wanted to be your friend.

I don't think we wanted to "save Poland" so much as "crush Germany".


You weren't able to protect the woman from being raped at all whatsoever, in fact you waited for her to be raped and only then started fighting, but during the fight you made an alliance with another bully (USSR) who did most of the fighting for you, and your big brother (USA) who offered to help you. You've survived the fight against that first bully (Germany), but your bigger brother (USA) and the other bully (USSR) then joined together to brake your bones several times and make you a disabled person, so you lost your security and independence to your bigger brother (USA) who now protects you and tells you what to do, and you lost almost all of your assets and posessions to the other bully (USSR).

Britain's days as a superpower were over world war 2 my friend. All world war 2 did was ensure the defeat of fascism in western Europe and as a result ensure a better quality of life for subsequent generations than would otherwise have been achieved. You can of course look at events very negatively, but what happened was simply a lesser evilt han the alternative.


On the other hand that stupid woman (Poland) who you wanted to protect got raped by/fell in love with the other bully (USSR) who you were initially in alliance with, and hated you and your bigger brother with passion. After 40 years of love for USSR, he finally died, so she now declares her eternal love for your bigger brother (USA) and has pictures of him all over the walls.

How exactly does this affect British people? World war 2 was not about Poland, it was simply a pretext. We benefitted regardless of Polands role in geo-poltics (which is actually now very pro-UK, as it's one of our biggest allies in the EU - though whether this helps British people is again a different matter - I'm not convinced)



Sounds like a rather sad story, doesn't it? :)

Not nearly as sad as the alternative.

[Kami]

You're twisting my words beyond recongition. I'm simply pointing out the differences between Britain's relationship with the USA, and it's relationship with Germany in 1939.
No, I recognize these differences and I'm asking you what they have to do with the situation at hand. Your past policies don't have to be carried out in the future. Britain, France, and Russia, for instance, have been enemies for centuries prior to teaming up together in the Entente Cordiale.


I suggest you check where the Rhineland is on a map.
Please don't make comments which hurt the intelligence of an average person. Rhineland was German territory. It was not an "expansion towards the channel".


But the US has never shown an inclination to attack white western Europeans.
LOL. Spain in 1898? Germany in 1917? BRITAIN in 1812?


I just don't see America ever attacking another developed country.
Your failure or refusal to see this is rather nauseating.


Since world war 2, no two countries with a McDonald's have been at war.
Oh really? Actually I heard that Serbia had McDonalds and Baghdad had some too. And a bunch of other countries from the huge list of US military deployments had McDonalds as well.
But even if this was true, even if US never attacked an open-market country, this is still the policy of forcing ideological obedience. In other words you are admitting that you have to adhere to a certain ideology in order to prevent hostilities, while Germany did not have such demands.
...and that is only US. I hope you don't actually believe though that "no two countries with a McDonald's have been at war", because that would be complete total nonsense.


I said, the Nazis killed more people in their short reign than the Americans have in their whole time as superpower.
Actually by the time Britain declared war on Germany, the Nazis had caused very very few casualties, compared to US at least. Ghandi actually praised Hitler in 1940 for "gaining his victories without much bloodshed".
And don't speak as if Britain was so clean of blood at the time. Take your "hero" Churchill, for instance. No way he could have minded the brutality of the Nazis, because Churchill was always in favor of violence against anybody who opposed British interests. Long before the war, he supported using concentration camps for the Boer women and kids, straving Indian villages--and here's his enlightened democratic quote on how to deal with the Iraqi Kurds, everybody's favorite persecuted minority, from a 1919 memo: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." :theclap:
That doesn't make him a bad guy though, it just makes him a standard European of that era.


And we won.
Oh even that is disputable. Legally UK was on the side of the winning powers, but actually the benefit was minimal... Well, this is not a topic of this discussion anyway.


about the nature of modern global capitalism
Germany was capitalist too and had a plenty of mutually-benefitial business deals with Britain and US. There was no problem with that at all.
I don't have the data specifically about Britain, but the value of U.S. business interests in Nazi Germany has been estimated at $475 million in 1941. The Nazis were drinking Coca-Cola, driving in Ford trucks, and counting Jews with IBM machines. Even Zyklon-B (the poison gas used in concentration camps) was produced by a company more than half of whose shareholders were Americans living in United States.
So don't talk about the nature of global capitalism as if it didn't apply to Germany.


You calling my value judgements silly is a value judgement.
Negation of negation, my friend, is benefitial ;)


I'm allowed to have them, you know.
I have opinions too, I'm not a nihilist which you probably think I am right now. Yet I don't label my ideological opinions as good or bad. They are just my opinions.


Chamberlain bought valuable time - preceeding 1939 it's unlikely we'd have been able to defeat a Nazi invasion.
Bullshit. :) In 1933, when Hitler came to power, Germany had almost no military at all. And it had no "westwall" on the French border either. In the meantime the Entente powers and Poland were armed to teeth with huge armies (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/map.jpg). The Polish leader Pilsudski proposed to the Entente powers a pre-emptitive invasion of Germany. It was refused. The Entente would have had a 100% chance of winning the war against Germany at that time. The longer you waited, the worse the situation became for YOU, not for Hitler.



Why would it have been good to prevent a war which preceeded the establishment of social democracy and lioberal capitalism in Western Europe, and made it one of the riches and peaceful parts of the world?
Aha so you are in favor of any bloodshed as long as it helps bring your ideology (which you believe is better) onto the world. :)
Tell me then, are you in favor of "Operation Unthinkable" - proposed invasion of USSR in 1946 to spread democracy?


What definition of estern Europe excludes Germany?
If you mean Eastern Europe, then every definition. Germany is usually considered part of "Central Europe", but many people, especially from the former Eastern Bloc think of it as "Western Europe".


Pacifism is the absolutist belief that violence is wrong in all circumstances. It transcends national boundaries.
Perhaps you are right, I don't know. There are probably different kinds of pacifists.


Britain's days as a superpower were over world war 2 my friend.
Of course, but I don't think they had to be. Some people believe that the collapse of the British Empire was inevitable. I am not sure if I agree with that point of view.


Not nearly as sad as the alternative.
Let's consider the "neutral" alternative.
Britain gives Germany a go-ahead into Eastern Europe and sits by and watches as Nazis and Communists slaughter each other out. If it looks like USSR is winning, a good consideration would be to stab Germany in the back and occupy Western portion of it to prevent USSR from getting there (akin to Soviets occupying Eastern Poland in 1939). However there might not even be a need to invade, Gemrany would surrender itself to Britain and France like it wanted to do historically but failed. Then play the Cold War pretty much the same way as it happened historically. Benefits - almost no war or casualties in Western Europe, Britain is not affected by the war at all.
If the Nazis are winning, good - you might want to declare war on USSR and try to gain some colonies and influence in the area before Germany does (Karelia, Crimia, Caucasus), but since those places are barely useful, you can as well stand back and see how your Marxist opponent withers away. Benefits - no war or casualties in Western Europe, Britain is not affected by the war at all. Communism is wiped out, and Germany is a good business partner.

Or let's consider a "pacifist" alternative:
In 1933, Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany. Pilsudski calls upon the Entente to attack Germany. In the next few months Nazi Germany ceases to exist and some anti-nazi dictatorship is restored (Can't restore democracy yet because the majority of the country voted Nazi just a few months ago).
Benefits - almost no casualties at all whatsoever, liberalism in Central Europe is restored. Soviet advance into Eastern Europe is prevented.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No, I recognize these differences and I'm asking you what they have to do with the situation at hand. Your past policies don't have to be carried out in the future. Britain, France, and Russia, for instance, have been enemies for centuries prior to teaming up together in the Entente Cordiale.

My point was why Germany was more likely to attack Britain than the USA would be. There was bad blood between Germany and britain which does not exist today between the UK and the USA.



Please don't make comments which hurt the intelligence of an average person. Rhineland was German territory. It was not an "expansion towards the channel".

It was the demilitarised zone impsoed to reassure the countries which is had attacked less than 30 years previously, in a war which it's new leader considered the ending of to have been a betrayal.



LOL. Spain in 1898? Germany in 1917? BRITAIN in 1812?

They hadn't attacked these countries on their own soil, which is what we were talking about - invasion. You keep moving the goalposts. However, historically, you probably can fault my claim. Realistically though, you can't tell me that the US is likely to invade a developed country, or any part of western Europe, any time soon.



Oh really? Actually I heard that Serbia had McDonalds and Baghdad had some too.

Serbia did, you are right. Baghdad's first Macdonalds, I read, opened in 2006.


But even if this was true, even if US never attacked an open-market country, this is still the policy of forcing ideological obedience. In other words you are admitting that you have to adhere to a certain ideology in order to prevent hostilities, while Germany did not have such demands.

I'm not admitting that necessarilly because each case is different and Saudi Arabia could hardly be described as a market economy, but even if I was admitting that, it's irrelevant, because I'm just saying that the nature of American imperialism is less bad than Nazi imperialism. It's that simple. I'm not saying the US is perfect.



Actually by the time Britain declared war on Germany, the Nazis had caused very very few casualties, compared to US at least.

Those casualties were not the result of Britain declaring war. Krystalnacht marked the beginning of the Holocaust proper, in 1938. You quote Mein Kampf a lot. Well, read it; the holocaust would have happened even if Britain had not declared war, and it would have been more succesful.


Ghandi actually praised Hitler in 1940 for "gaining his victories without much bloodshed".

This only serves to discredit Ghandi, a pacifist. So thanks.


And don't speak as if Britain was so clean of blood at the time. Take your "hero" Churchill, for instance. No way he could have minded the brutality of the Nazis, because Churchill was always in favor of violence against anybody who opposed British interests. Long before the war, he supported using concentration camps for the Boer women and kids, straving Indian villages--and here's his enlightened democratic quote on how to deal with the Iraqi Kurds, everybody's favorite persecuted minority, from a 1919 memo: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes." :theclap:

I knew this. Churchill isn't my hero. You're putting words in my mouth. He was simply, due to his actions, a lesser evil than Hitler.


That doesn't make him a bad guy though, it just makes him a standard European of that era.

Nonsense. Plenty of Europeans at the time opposed that attitude. this whole "you have to see things in the context of their time" attitude is often fallacious - if a great many Brits at the time were prepared to oppose imperialism and racism, then there is no reason why churchill could not have, ahd he had the capability to be more enlightened.



Germany was capitalist too and had a plenty of mutually-benefitial business deals with Britain and US. There was no problem with that at all.
I don't have the data specifically about Britain, but the value of U.S. business interests in Nazi Germany has been estimated at $475 million in 1941. The Nazis were drinking Coca-Cola, driving in Ford trucks, and counting Jews with IBM machines. Even Zyklon-B (the poison gas used in concentration camps) was produced by a company more than half of whose shareholders were Americans living in United States.
So don't talk about the nature of global capitalism as if it didn't apply to Germany.

What's your point? I didn't say the Nazis weren't capitlist. I said that the nature of todays form of capitalism is better than the Nazi version of it.


Negation of negation, my friend, is benefitial ;)

So in effect, you admit that we all make value judgements, and that it's incredibly weak to tell someone else they cannot, when in fact this rests on the presumption that value judgements are bad which is in itself a value judement.



I have opinions too, I'm not a nihilist which you probably think I am right now. Yet I don't label my ideological opinions as good or bad. They are just my opinions.

Obviously you think they are better than other opinions, or you wouldn't hold them.


Bullshit. :) In 1933, when Hitler came to power, Germany had almost no military at all. And it had no "westwall" on the French border either. In the meantime the Entente powers and Poland were armed to teeth with huge armies (http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/posters/map.jpg). The Polish leader Pilsudski proposed to the Entente powers a pre-emptitive invasion of Germany. It was refused. The Entente would have had a 100% chance of winning the war against Germany at that time. The longer you waited, the worse the situation became for YOU, not for Hitler.

maybe. none of this means that a pacifist should have been proud to have not fought in world war 2.


Aha so you are in favor of any bloodshed as long as it helps bring your ideology (which you believe is better) onto the world. :)

No, I'm in favour of bloodshed which prevents a greater level of bloodshed. Common sense.



Every definition. Germany is usually considered part of "Central Europe", but many people, especially from the former Eastern Bloc think of it as "Western Europe".

for the purposes of this discussion, I was talkign about everything west of the iron curtain, ie the region that became relatively rich and peaceful after world war 2.



Perhaps you are right, I don't know. There are probably different kinds of pacifists.

Probably, yes, but it's not supposed to be a pragmatic approach to geo-politics, rather a moral rule that "violence is wrong".


Of course, but I don't think they had to be. Some people believe that the collapse of the British Empire was inevitable. I am not sure if I agree with that point of view.

It was no longer profitable. Britain was a declining nation of starving masses and ever poorer middle classes, with huge unemployment, housing shortages, etc. (as described in The Road To Wigan Pier) being taxed to fund a parasitical officer elite living like kings in the Empire. This could not have ocntinued forever.



Let's consider the "neutral" alternative.
Britain gives Germany a go-ahead into Eastern Europe and sits by and watches as Nazis and Communists slaughter each other out.
If it looks like USSR is winning, a good consideration would be to stab Germany in the back and occupy Western portion of it to prevent USSR from getting there (akin to Soviets occupying Eastern Poland in 1939). However there might not even be a need to invade, Gemrany would surrender itself to Britain and France like it wanted to do historically but failed. Then play the Cold War pretty much the same way as it happened historically. Benefits - almost no war or casualties in Western Europe, Britain is not affected by the war at all.
If the Nazis are winning, good - you might want to declare war on USSR and try to gain some colonies and influence in the area before Germany does (Karelia, Crimia, Caucasus), but since those places are barely useful, you can as well stand back and see how your Marxist opponent withers away. Benefits - no war or casualties in Western Europe, Britain is not affected by the war at all. Communism is wiped out, and Germany is a good business partner.

You are viewing Hitler as something akin to Franco. I don't think being a "good business partner" interested him in the least. He was a megaolamaniac who was pretty much impossible to second-guess. And I don't think having a strong Nazi empire - the most genocidal regime our region had ever known, by a long way - in the heart of Europe would have been as good for us western Europeans as the years since 1945 have been - social demcoracy, liberal capitlism, and integration. We confronted fascism, we defeated it, and replaced it with a more peaceful alternative, which resulted in western Europe's most peaceful and prosperous era ever. If you are seriosuly suggesting that a Nazi Empire on our doorstep would have been preferable to the post-war model for western Europe of political integration, welfare states and a free-trade bloc, then I think you're so wrong it's beyong a lauching matter.


Or let's consider a "pacifist" alternative:
In 1933, Hitler is appointed Chancellor of Germany. Pilsudski calls upon the Entente to attack Germany. In the next few months Nazi Germany ceases to exist and some anti-nazi dictatorship is restored (Can't resotre democracy yet because the majority of the country voted Nazi just a few months ago).
Benefits - almost no casualties at all whatsoever, liberalism in Central Europe is restored. Soviet advance into Eastern Europe is prevented.


This is not pacifist. And yes, in hindisght maybe it would have been a good idea. So what? The fact we didn't fight him earlier is hardly a justification for not fighting Hitler in 1939.

[LongSilence]

Let's compare the example you brought up to what happened in that war:

You (Britain) went to fight to defend a stupid, arrogant, and agressive woman (Poland) from being raped by a bully (Germany) who wanted to be your friend. You weren't able to protect the woman from being raped at all whatsoever, in fact you waited for her to be raped and only then started fighting, but during the fight you made an alliance with another bully (USSR) who did most of the fighting for you, and your big brother (USA) who offered to help you. You've survived the fight against that first bully (Germany), but your bigger brother (USA) and the other bully (USSR) then joined together to brake your bones several times and make you a disabled person, so you lost your security and independence to your bigger brother (USA) who now protects you and tells you what to do, and you lost almost all of your assets and posessions to the other bully (USSR). On the other hand that stupid woman (Poland) who you wanted to protect got raped by/fell in love with the other bully (USSR) who you were initially in alliance with, and hated you and your bigger brother with passion. After 40 years of love for USSR, he finally died, so she now declares her eternal love for your bigger brother (USA) and has pictures of him all over the walls.

Sounds like a rather sad story, doesn't it? :)
Almost like a Russian saying "Мы хотели как лучше, но получилось как всегда". :)

Let's edit and expand the story shall we?

Britain had for quite a while now been Chairman of a Club of Horny Old Men who had for quite some time perfected the art of 'seducing' poor pretty girls. Now these CHOMs weren't completely heartless- the idea was to get the girls pregnant, keep them in the kitchen but also teach them a few things. You see, in their old age it was becoming increasing clear to the CHOMs that not only were they out of pretty girls to play with but that as the girls grew older they also were growing quite bolder. You see, as time went on they were beginning to find dominating the girls both difficult to manage and to swallow. The pretty young thing known as the USA had been quite a lesson as it had grown up so fast, thrown Britain out of its house and promptly had a sex change.

Now with all the pretty girls taken Germany and Austria-Hungary started to grow a little lusty, Britain, France and Russia grow a little uneasy and soon enough the fighting starts. Of course we all know the end result of that little fracas- Austria-Hungary ends the War pretty much neutered, Germany gets a Chastity Belt and out of it all Poland is (re)born. But meanwhile the young girls are still growing ever more confident in themselves and the fighting wore out any of the Old men's lusts for conquest that remained.

Time passes and the Old men all get a little depressed. To deal with it everyone starts to think about reverting to a little rape again. Britain and France stick with their belief that the time has passed for violent sexual conquest and start to consider the possibility that perhaps the young women might just grow to become too much to handle. Germany, Russia and Japan on the other hand go a little sex-mad...

Germany starts the ball rolling, breaks its chastity belt and begins to 'seduce' the eunuch Austria, then a little more forcefully Czechoslovakia. Now, this sort of thing Britain and France could just about handle because the sex seemed happy enough for both parties. That said, they didn't agree at all with the Nazi penchant for bondage and S&M. And when the bully began to rape Poland, an independent lady of some class that they had helped set up it was quite clear not only was the bully uncontrollably lusty but also quite mad.

Then the rest is history- USSR and Germany gangbang Poland, look at each other angrily and then turn away. Germany go back and rapes France. Germany and Britain start jerking off in each other's faces to see who blinks first, Japan decides it too would like to tie up and spank China before going and kicking a surprised USA in the nuts, Germany gets bored with Britain's unwillingness to bend over and then turns on the USSR.

In the end, the War was won by the people who were less fond of forced bondage who promptly went to war with their rapist ally. The USA had proven that its not so fond of bondage, but rather partial to prostitution and pimping. It makes fewer scars and allows people to wear nicer suits.

[Kami]

My point was why Germany was more likely to attack Britain than the USA would be.
As I just showed you in previous post, international relations are subject to very quick change sometimes. Germany isn't any more or less likely to invade you than any other country with same capabilities because of "bad history" between you. In fact, Britain and Prussia have been very close friends for a while. Then that changed. USSR managed to completely reverse its foreign policy towards Germany about 3 times in just one decade.


It was the demilitarised zone impsoed to reassure the countries which is had attacked less than 30 years previously, in a war which it's new leader considered the ending of to have been a betrayal.
Sure, it was a demilitarized zone because, once again, Britain was afraid of Germany becomming powerful. By militarizing Rhineland zone Germany did become a bit more "threatening" because its army now bordered France directly, but even there - it's France anyway, not Britain. You are not obliged to care for France just because the French can't take care of themselves.


They hadn't attacked these countries on their own soil, which is what we were talking about - invasion
First of all, why would you care and distinguish whether it was an invasion of the homeland or attack on your posession elsewhere? Does it really matter that much? It is an action of the same nature - foreign aggression. Germany's aggression against countries in Europe was no different. Germany just happens to be located in Europe so in case of war it is more likely to try to invade your homeland than try to go for your colonies overseas. Does that make it more of a threat? Maybe, a little. But that doesn't explain why at the same time you would take absolutely no notice of USA becomming uber-powerful overseas, expanding its navy far beyond British or German capabilities, and permanently stationing its troops in Britain without a fight. Again - this is a far far bigger potential "threat" that you've exposed yourself to than German takeover of Eastern Europe.


Serbia did, you are right. Baghdad's first Macdonalds, I read, opened in 2006.
Do you really want me to seriosuly go about disproving your statement that "Since world war 2, no two countries with a McDonald's have been at war"? I have plenty of examples at my disposal, but it seems to me that the claim is so ridiculous that you are not really serious about it.


I said that the nature of todays form of capitalism is better than the Nazi version of it.
How so? (I assume that by "better" in this case you mean it promotes peace)
If you say that because Germany spent a lot of money on the military, once again the good old comaprison comes to mind - USA, which spends half of its federal budget on the military, far more than Germany could allow until mobilization in 1943.


you admit that we all make value judgements
All right, fine. Absolutism is just not my thing though.


Obviously you think they are better than other opinions, or you wouldn't hold them.
Nope I don't. What I feel is better for me may in fact be much worse for someone else (including you), so I prefer not to use terms better or worse altogether.


none of this means that a pacifist should have been proud to have not fought in world war 2.
Well the point of that particular paragraph was to prove that Britain's strategy, if described as pacifist, was a failure. But it was not pacifist as you said already so it was just a side note.


No, I'm in favour of bloodshed which prevents a greater level of bloodshed.
So you are the true pacifist, for whom the ends justify the means! All righty then. :) In that case you have to carry out a really complex analysis every time you make a stance on any issue to determine how many casualties each option would cause.

Interestingly though, you know, the Bolsheviks and their present day followers offer the same explanation for their historically aggressive and sometimes brutal policies as you explain your stance. They say that everything the Bolsheviks did was directed towards the ultimate goal of achieving Communism, under which there would be no more war or starvation or exploitation. And since the ends justify the means, almost any crimes committed under Stalin's leadership can be excused that way!


ie the region that became relatively rich and peaceful after world war 2.
As opposed to everything east of the iron curtain, ie the region that also became relatively rich and peaceful after world war 2? :)


He was a megaolamaniac who was pretty much impossible to second-guess.
Woah, impossible to second-guess? Despite the fact that nearly everything he did was what he promised he would do a long time ago in his books and speeches? Only the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was something that nearly no one saw comming, but it was a purely pragmatic and non-ideological move, easy to guess anyway. But neither his ideology nor pragmatism conflicted directly with Britain. Only a "potential threat" value.


We confronted fascism, we defeated it, and replaced it with a more peaceful alternative
So once again, your argument is "our ideology is correct and better than yours therefore we have the right to impose it on you even if that will cost us both some destruction and casualties". Soviet leaders also believed that. I don't really know how to argue against that point of view, because for me it is self-evident that nothing is inherently right or wrong for every human being.

I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting (IMHO) passage from an American magazine published in Moscow. It's not long, I suggest you read it and hopefully draw at least some conclusions.

Myth #5: People want democracy and peace and all that kind of stuff.
No. In fact, HELL no! Let me repeat your first lesson: consult your own experience instead of believing the talking heads. Do you care about those things -- I mean, compared to money and sex and taking revenge on the MR2 that cut you off a couple of blocks back? The only ideology I see around me is God. Most people in Fresno have a bad case of God. It takes up all their brain power trying to read the Bible and mind everybody else's business. They wouldn't care if Charles Manson took power as long as he said God and Jesus every few seconds. Out of all the people I've met, I can only think of one who cared about democracy: my Social Studies teacher. But he was one of these decent old Minnesota Swedes, goodhearted, too soft for Bakersfield, committed to ignoring reality. His wife, another big Secular Humanist, left him for a dyke, his students called him "Gums" and he admitted once to our class that he'd lost his Faith. That made him Public Enemy #1 with the Christians and he had to transfer to another school district. That's what believing in that stuff'll get you.

If this is a democracy, it's weird how the only people who go in for it are conmen and closet cases like Rove. No normal American would go near it. They know better. We all know local politics belongs to real estate developers at civic level and to the corporations at Federal level. Which is fine with me, and with most Americans, but why call it democracy?

And as for peace, I was always against it. Peace is for people who have satisfying lives. The rest of us want that flood, that real rain. Like the man said, "Bring it on."

Look around the world and you'll see that people are divided into ethnic gangs, like the planet's one big San Quentin. All they want is for their gang to win. If they have any ideology beyond that, it's more of the God stuff, and you need Thorazine to cure that. Godfearing gangbangers, that's exactly what we ran into in Somalia, 1993. Half the population of Mogadishu turned on our guys who were trying to provide aid for the starving. They didn't want peace, democracy or any of that shit. They wanted their clan to win and the other clans to lose. And if stopping the aid convoys from getting food to those enemy clans was the only way to win, they were ready to make it happen, ready to die fighting our best troops backed by attack helicopters and APCs. We killed maybe a thousand of these "civilians" and lost 18 Rangers and Delta operators. And the Somalis made the anniversary of that fight a national holiday. It's worth giving a moment to let that sink in: these people fought to the death against overwhelmingly superior US forces, because they wanted their clan to win by starving rival clans to death.



LongSilence
Your story is also nice and pretty accurate, although you kind of failed to mention that Germany, Russia, and Japan had their reasons to get sex-mad. Germany and Japan did so because they saw so many ladies under British roof and were very jealous at that. And USSR was very much like our friend demagogic_schizoid, sacredly believed that his ideology was better than everyone elses and was willing to go to war to impose it on everyone.
Otherwise, nice and creative piece :)

[LongSilence]

You're focussing way too much on the idea that every country automatically believes "Everyone else must believe our ideologies or face the consequences!!" A lot of international politics is not violence or based around overt threats- its diplomacy. Liberal countries are by their nature less inclined to go and "rape" than the "Sex-mad" countries are. Thus, much of the West in the 20th Century could 'trust' that they would not invade each other for the sake of conquest. Ask yourself- why, oh why, if Britain and France were so concerned about their empires did they not just go in and take Germany over for themselves?

Of course, America had its say and influenced the Treaty of Versailles hugely but the point is, they wouldn't have just come and invaded if things hadn't gone entirely their way. That was not the American way. The American way was fast becoming the way of the "Economic carrot and stick". And such a way has great effect on liberal democracies whose impoverished peoples can simply elect a new government but very little on powerful dictatorships who can just tell their people to 'tighten their belts'. Britain and France's regimes were also cast in this mold somewhat and since the beginning of the Century had been in an alliance of sorts.

Germany, Russia and Japan were heralding a far more brutal type of global 'diplomacy' that would view military muscle as a much more coercive form of persuasion. In such a world the international borders set down by the League of Nations were not safe and with one man being in charge of the great nations' armed forces it would only take a minute disagreement for a nation to act against his wishes and war to break loose.

Come now, let's look at Adolf in your 'alternative' histories: He takes Poland with ease and dependent on France's reaction then chooses whether to go for Russia or France first. Let's say he goes for the French who, uncharacteristically left alone by the British, fall quickly. He now has a rather remarkable fleet in his hands that grows weekly. His already obedient people begin to adore him as his war machine steps up its research and production. He moves quickly against Russia catching a gullible Stalin by surprise [it happened in real history too].

With the full force of his undistracted assault powered by an undisturbed industry in Germany and France he plows through the great plains of Russia. He still gets a mite slowed down by the harsh Russian winter and the frightful willingness of Stalin to have his people make sacrifice after sacrifice but let's say conservatively after two to three years he has the Russians beat, Stalin executed and his own puppet installed. [It's unlikely to last that long- imagine the terrific air, naval and tank superiority Hitler would have possessed if he had not had to divert much of his resources in a stalemate with Britain. Stalingrad would probably have merely been obiliterated rather than remain such a stalling point]

What now? He says to himself- "Perfect, now I can just sit back and concern myself with dealing with all these annoying little ethnic minorities in my perfect Empire." Or does he not use his immense and terrifying power to bully every other country into doing what he wants and perhaps encouraging them to install their own rather right-wing regimes in order to cooperate or compete with him. After destroying Russia he would most likely possess a Navy superior to the British and even the US ones. And we're overlooking the actions of Italy and Japan in this period...

A Nazi empire joining together out of convenience with Japan would most likely be able to take on and defeat Britain and the US, especially given Germany's remarkable advancements in the field of ballistic missiles. Which leads us to a very important issue... what if, in this brutal and bloody theatre of war Hitler gets his hands on the Nuclear Bomb first? Who knows what his scientists would have been able to achieve with more resources and fewer interruptions from British efforts? You think Hitler was the kind of guy who would have to stop pushing the button because of how his own people might morally object?

I guess I'm kinda paving a middle way between you and DS. In some ways the Allies were just preventing the spread of a different ideology but they were doing so because it was apparent that it was an ideology that very much threatened their own burgeoning beliefs in self-determination, and their knowledge that such a spread of that ideology was good for business... but not enough to go on a conquering rampage for.

[Dark Razor]

After destroying Russia he would most likely possess a Navy superior to the British and even the US ones. And we're overlooking the actions of Italy and Japan in this period...


Just a small correction: that Germany would possess such a powerful Navy would be extremely unlikely, if we look at what was originaly laid out in the Z-Plan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_Z)
then we see that until 1945 there were the following additional ships to be build:

4 aircraft carriers
6 H Class battleships
3 "O Class" battlecruisers
12 "Kreuzer P Class" Panzerschiffe
2 Hipper Class heavy cruisers (Seydlitz, and L?tzow)
4 "M Class" light cruisers
2 "Improved M Class" light cruisers
6 " Spaehkreuzer Class" large destroyers

(Though if I look at the German article, I see that until 1948 there were additional ships to be build which would total:
12 Battleships
12 "Panzerschiffe" "Kreuzer P"
4 Aircraft Carriers
5 Heavy Cruisers
16 light cruisers
22 "Spaehkreuzer" A kind of a larger destroyer
158 Destroyers and torpedo boats
249 Submarines
Plus the ships already availabe in 1935

which would have made it possible to compete with the British fleet in the North Sea and the Atlantic, however the US Navy grew enormously huge once production picked up in 1943 or so, one just has to look at the scale of some of the naval battles in the Pacific where Japan, which had a Navy far larger, more capable and better trained than Germany could ever have had by, say 1945, was crushed within a relatively short time.


A land power like Germany will never be able to compete with maritime powers like Britain or the US (or Japan).

If dispite all the problems the 1948 Navy would have been completed like planned I think
it might have constituted a reasonable defencive force to deter invasion of mainland Europe, and defend trade routes for a limited amount of time, but for offensive actions in any conflict that has the US as an opponent it would be completely inadequate. Against Britain in isolation it would have been formidable, though, but it is unlikely that the US would have allowed a single power to rule all of Europe, as the US has as one of it's primary strategic interests to keep the Eurasian powers constantly threatening each other on land, so that none of them can develop a Navy that could threaten the US mainland.

The Z-Plan was abandoned in 1939, though, because the material was needed for Army and Airforce, so all of this is speculation, of course.

Also, if you look at the actual plans for the invasion of Britain, then it gets clear that it would have been a complete disaster, even if Germany would have somehow managed to land troops in Britain. Not only because of difficulties with logistics and equipment, but also because Germany had virtually Zero experience with naval invasions.


What would have happend if Britain had remained neutral? I dont know, I do know that Hitler had this fantasy of ruling Continental Europe while Britain would rule the seas, but I dont think he had thought much how to practically achieve that.

When trying to predict possible behaviour of Germany after a possible victory over the USSR, one also has to take into account the mystical ideas many of the Nazi leadership had. The idea of the German Reich as the protector and overlord ,so to speak, of Europe, which stems from the role that the German Kaiser had as the protector of Christianity during the days of the Holy Roman Empire, is very important. Part of this idea is that Germany is the natural and rightly ruler over Europe and the choosen protector of the Christian "Abendland" (Occident) (even though Hitlers ultimate plans were to eradicate Christianity after "final victory" was achieved.) So, what follows from this is that Germany would have demanded the leading role in Europe and would likely interfered with the internal politics of all her neighbours. I dont have detailed knowledge about this though, so I cant really make any accurate predictions on how this might have effected Britain.

btw. Kami, I would like to appologize for my rude behaviour in my personal thread back then, after reading your posts I realize you are a good and interesting poster, it will not happen again.

[demagogic_schizoid]

As I just showed you in previous post, international relations are subject to very quick change sometimes. Germany isn't any more or less likely to invade you than any other country with same capabilities because of "bad history" between you.

You think? I thought Hitler was resentful of the Jews because of the "bad history" between them and the "true Germans"...he certainly proved his vengefulness there, didn't he?


In fact, Britain and Prussia have been very close friends for a while. Then that changed. USSR managed to completely reverse its foreign policy towards Germany about 3 times in just one decade.

All this is true, but you're forgetting that Americans and British are cousins who speak the same language, look the same, etc. Persuading Americans to bomb arabs, Japs, or even Germans, would be much easier than persuading them to bomb Britain. International relations canc hange, but america isn't likely to attack any white western European country in the conceivable future, least of all Britain, so therefore the comparison between Britain's relation with the failry liberal USA and with the genocidal Nazis is a totally false comparison.



Sure, it was a demilitarized zone because, once again, Britain was afraid of Germany becomming powerful. By militarizing Rhineland zone Germany did become a bit more "threatening" because its army now bordered France directly, but even there - it's France anyway, not Britain. You are not obliged to care for France just because the French can't take care of themselves.

We weren't obliged to, but it served the interests of the average British person to not have Nazis across the Channel, it served the interests of the average French person to not be occupied by the Nazis, and it served the interests of the average german to not be ruled by Nazis, so the greatest good for the greatest number dictates than any sensible person should have supported to broad coallition to oppose and defeat Nazi expansion, whatver the selfish motives of the British ruling class may have been.



First of all, why would you care and distinguish whether it was an invasion of the homeland or attack on your posession elsewhere?

Because I don't thinkw e have a right to an overseas possession in the first place,however I do think the people living here in Britain have a right not to be subjugated to foreign rule. why do you even need to ask such a question?


Germany's aggression against countries in Europe was no different.

Jesus christ man, the Germans were comitting genocide against the people they invaded, the Americans were not.


Germany just happens to be located in Europe so in case of war it is more likely to try to invade your homeland than try to go for your colonies overseas. Does that make it more of a threat? Maybe, a little.

Yes, it makes it a lot worse, because the entire British population being subjected to a Nazi invasion is much worse than us simply having to recognise the independence of a country 99% of us have never been to.

Also, the nature of the Nazi regime would be less tolerable than the nature of American occupation of the lands we stole overseas. The Nazis would have killed more people, granted workers and individuals less rights, and obliged the country to serve the interests of the "Empire" much more strictly than the Americans ever did. I don't deny the bad things the americans did, but the Nazis were worse by almost any criteria. Hence, I support aligning myself with the lesser evil. I have explained this many times.


But that doesn't explain why at the same time you would take absolutely no notice of USA becomming uber-powerful overseas, expanding its navy far beyond British or German capabilities, and permanently stationing its troops in Britain without a fight.

See above.



Do you really want me to seriosuly go about disproving your statement that "Since world war 2, no two countries with a McDonald's have been at war"? I have plenty of examples at my disposal, but it seems to me that the claim is so ridiculous that you are not really serious about it.

Ummm I just admitted it was incorrct, what more do you want?


How so? (I assume that by "better" in this case you mean it promotes peace)
If you say that because Germany spent a lot of money on the military, once again the good old comaprison comes to mind - USA, which spends half of its federal budget on the military, far more than Germany could allow until mobilization in 1943.

Better because the USA has killed less people in its time as a superpower than the Nazis did in their short reign, as I keep stating. Better for all the reasons I gave above about human rights, about being less genocidal, about being more tolerant of dissent, etc.


All right, fine. Absolutism is just not my thing though.

It doesn't seem that way. Perhaps how you percieve yourself is different to how you come across.



Nope I don't. What I feel is better for me may in fact be much worse for someone else (including you), so I prefer not to use terms better or worse altogether.

So you would never say that the EU is better than the Third Reich? I think this is just silly.



Well the point of that particular paragraph was to prove that Britain's strategy, if described as pacifist, was a failure.

Surely this would back up my point thast pacifism is a failed ideology.


So you are the true pacifist, for whom the ends justify the means! All righty then. :) In that case you have to carry out a really complex analysis every time you make a stance on any issue to determine how many casualties each option would cause.

I said I'm not a pacifist. My whole point here has been to dismiss pacifism. I wouldn't make a general rule that "the ends justify the means". However, if I had to choose between two different morally imperfect courses of action, as realistically all actions are, I'd generally choose the one which had the most positive outcome for most people. It's not always easy to tell which course of action this is, but by the time World War 2 was under-way, I'd say that it's quite easy to see why a victory for the allies effort would have a better outcome for the majority of people than victory for the axis. Now as you are in Eastern Europe I understand you may have a different view of this. But for someone in Britain at the time, I don't think there would be any justification for not recognising this.


Interestingly though, you know, the Bolsheviks and their present day followers offer the same explanation for their historically aggressive and sometimes brutal policies as you explain your stance. They say that everything the Bolsheviks did was directed towards the ultimate goal of achieving Communism, under which there would be no more war or starvation or exploitation. And since the ends justify the means, almost any crimes committed under Stalin's leadership can be excused that way!

But I'm not proposing constant war to achieve a utopia, simply accepting that once war is underway, and you are in Britain in 1939, and the Nazis are on your countries doorstep, only a fool would think that it was not worth defeating them. It's a pretty feeble position to take if you think of it..."oh God, who am I to know what's best? What gives me the right to impose my non-Nazism? We're not perfect, how canw e judge them..." etc., etc.,...it's bullshit....the war is between a less genocidal, more liberal, more democratic, more peaceful status quo, and a totally fucking insane invader, a killing machine taking human depravity to new levels, and trying to spread this to your country, and beyond, and to consolidate and expand its imposition of this creed on your neighbours...for someone in that situation to maintain a pacifist position strikes me as totally ridiculous. Did they really think, in 1939 when the Holocaust was under way, when Hitler was attacking Britain, that their kids and grandchildren would not be better off as a result of defeating Nazism?



Woah, impossible to second-guess? Despite the fact that nearly everything he did was what he promised he would do a long time ago in his books and speeches? Only the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was something that nearly no one saw comming, but it was a purely pragmatic and non-ideological move, easy to guess anyway. But neither his ideology nor pragmatism conflicted directly with Britain. Only a "potential threat" value.

A potential threat which we did not want to live with, and which by defeating we saved lives and laid the foundations for a more prosperous and secure alternative. So what's the problem?


So once again, your argument is "our ideology is correct and better than yours therefore we have the right to impose it on you even if that will cost us both some destruction and casualties".

Why would you oppose the effort to defeat a destructive and genocidal regime on the grounds that some destruction and casualties would occur as a result? this makes no sense. Either you think destruction and casualties are a bad thing, or you don't. If not, then opposing an action on those grounds is invsalidated, and if so, then why would you propose tolerating the Nazis, who were clearly more genocidal and destructive than the British or American empires.


Soviet leaders also believed that. I don't really know how to argue against that point of view, because for me it is self-evident that nothing is inherently right or wrong for every human being.

No, but some things are better for the world, and some are not. Possibly the ending of the feudal system and absolute monarchy in Britain harmed many people, but I have no doubt that the people who fought against these things were doing something necessary so that humanity may progress - whatever their motives were.







LongSilence
And USSR was very much like our friend demagogic_schizoid, sacredly believed that his ideology was better than everyone elses and was willing to go to war to impose it on everyone.
Otherwise, nice and creative piece :)
this is absolutely ridiculous, I don't condone going to war to impose my ideology, only to defeat someone who is trying to impose hteir ideology on others. Which is what we did in 1939. However much we may then have "imposed" on the liberated coutnries,w e certainly imposed less than the Nazis would have. So if you oppose dictatorial imposition,t hen you should have supported the less imposing Empire, ie the british and Americans (and then resisted their own attempts to impose their views, sure, but only after ensuring the defeat of an even worse, by your own criteria, Nazi alternative)



Myth #5: People want democracy and peace and all that kind of stuff.
No. In fact, HELL no! Let me repeat your first lesson: consult your own experience instead of believing the talking heads. Do you care about those things -- I mean, compared to money and sex and taking revenge on the MR2 that cut you off a couple of blocks back? The only ideology I see around me is God. Most people in Fresno have a bad case of God. It takes up all their brain power trying to read the Bible and mind everybody else's business. They wouldn't care if Charles Manson took power as long as he said God and Jesus every few seconds. Out of all the people I've met, I can only think of one who cared about democracy: my Social Studies teacher. But he was one of these decent old Minnesota Swedes, goodhearted, too soft for Bakersfield, committed to ignoring reality. His wife, another big Secular Humanist, left him for a dyke, his students called him "Gums" and he admitted once to our class that he'd lost his Faith. That made him Public Enemy #1 with the Christians and he had to transfer to another school district. That's what believing in that stuff'll get you.

If this is a democracy, it's weird how the only people who go in for it are conmen and closet cases like Rove. No normal American would go near it. They know better. We all know local politics belongs to real estate developers at civic level and to the corporations at Federal level. Which is fine with me, and with most Americans, but why call it democracy?

And as for peace, I was always against it. Peace is for people who have satisfying lives. The rest of us want that flood, that real rain. Like the man said, "Bring it on."

Look around the world and you'll see that people are divided into ethnic gangs, like the planet's one big San Quentin. All they want is for their gang to win. If they have any ideology beyond that, it's more of the God stuff, and you need Thorazine to cure that. Godfearing gangbangers, that's exactly what we ran into in Somalia, 1993. Half the population of Mogadishu turned on our guys who were trying to provide aid for the starving. They didn't want peace, democracy or any of that shit. They wanted their clan to win and the other clans to lose. And if stopping the aid convoys from getting food to those enemy clans was the only way to win, they were ready to make it happen, ready to die fighting our best troops backed by attack helicopters and APCs. We killed maybe a thousand of these "civilians" and lost 18 Rangers and Delta operators. And the Somalis made the anniversary of that fight a national holiday. It's worth giving a moment to let that sink in: these people fought to the death against overwhelmingly superior US forces, because they wanted their clan to win by starving rival clans to death

Quite an accurate view of the world. What's your point?

[Kami]

demagogic_schizoid

You think? I thought Hitler was resentful of the Jews because of the "bad history" between them and the "true Germans"...
I don't think, I know. Weimar German government had no particular problem with Jews then Hitler came to power and that changed. Hitler's own ideology of course would not change so rapidly, and there was no reason for it to change.


All this is true, but you're forgetting that Americans and British are cousins who speak the same language, look the same, etc.
So you would trust Americans more than Germans because they speak the same language? Doesn't seem exactly logical to me. By the way, Germans are your relatives too, AFAIK. Your older brothers.


america isn't likely to attack any white western European country in the conceivable future, least of all Britain
If you grow hostile to their power and declare war on United States, the US will have no choice but to attack you. Again, your failure to see this is inexplicable.


and it served the interests of the average german to not be ruled by Nazis
I don't understand you. Why do you think you have the right to declare what is in the interests of the French and Germans? The Nazis were elected by German population. Why would it not be in the interests of the Germans to be ruled by the Nazis? What the fuck do we have democracy for anyway then?
If you know what's best for everyone better than anyone else does, why don't you just proclaim a world dictatorship and act it out?
Are you in favor of democracy at all? Or you are only in favor of democracy when it gives the results that you want?


Because I don't thinkw e have a right to an overseas possession in the first place,however I do think the people living here in Britain have a right not to be subjugated to foreign rule.
Whether you think that Britain has the right to those posessions does not matter in this case absolutely. An attack on British Canada would mean the same thing to the British governemnt as an attack on Britain itself, and treated similarly. It is an act of same nature.


Jesus christ man, the Germans were comitting genocide against the people they invaded, the Americans were not
Actually they were, and on a much larger scale, but a long time ago.


Yes, it makes it a lot worse, because the entire British population being subjected to a Nazi invasion is much worse than us simply having to recognise the independence of a country 99% of us have never been to.
So you admit that you don't care about Canadians or Australians or anyone else in the commonwealth? They could be just invaded at any time and Britain would not even consider that much of a threat.


Also, the nature of the Nazi regime would be less tolerable than the nature of American occupation of the lands we stole overseas.
It comes back to your ideological preference, point taken.


Better because the USA has killed less people in its time as a superpower than the Nazis did in their short reign, as I keep stating.
Killing people within your own country doesn't start a war. You were trying to prove that Germany would be more likely to attack Britain than USA because of the nature of modern capitalism, now you go back to the crimes the Nazis committed within their territory. How does it relate?


So you would never say that the EU is better than the Third Reich?
I would never say that. And it's not silly, it is correct. There are still many people who believe that Third Reich is preferrable, and I can't objectively prove them wrong, neither can you, so the label is useless.


I said I'm not a pacifist.
At first you say that pacifism is preventing bloodshed worldwide by any means less bloody, then you say that you are in favor of preventing bloodshed worldwide by any means less bloody, then you say you are not a pacifist. Where's a problem?


But I'm not proposing constant war to achieve a utopia
Why not? That is your own ideology taken to a more extreme level. You accepted some 62,000,000 human casualties and a heckload of destruction in order to bring liberalism to western Germany and Italy. After that, it seems only logical that you favor Bolshevik-style struggle for utopia.


So what's the problem?
I'll list a short summary of the problems:
1. You've still not disproven the fact that US is and was in 1930s a much bigger potential threat to Britain than Germany, yet it was Germany that had to be declared war on.
2. Your understanding of a better alternative does not match the understandings of other people, and does not represent any "fundamental human truth". In short, you are being arrogant.


Why would you oppose the effort to defeat a destructive and genocidal regime on the grounds that some destruction and casualties would occur as a result?
Expalin to me the opposite:
Why would you support the defeat of a destructive and genocidal regime, if it doesn't threaten you personally?


this is absolutely ridiculous, I don't condone going to war to impose my ideology, only to defeat someone who is trying to impose hteir ideology on others.
Waoh, if so then you must be really really in favor of going to war against USA. :) And against yourself too. You are being hypocritical.


Quite an accurate view of the world. What's your point?
The point is painfully obvious: people are different and they don't want the stuff that you want AT ALL. So you don't have a moral right to tell them what is right and what is wrong for them.

LongSilence

Ask yourself- why, oh why, if Britain and France were so concerned about their empires did they not just go in and take Germany over for themselves?
Chiefly because that would go against a stupid, but nonetheless an established centuries-old European tradition of not taking too much trophy from war against a civilized power. Going against that tradition at the end of WW1 would make them look bad-ass within the eyes of powers like US, which (at that time) followed this tradition to the point of extreme stupidity.

Germany and Japan and USSR also actually cared about these old traditions, believe it or not, they were not all "Vae Victis" rampagers. However the German definition of who was civilized and who wasn't was a little different. When Germans defeated France - they forced only token territorial concessions, when they went to war against Poland - they permanently annexed it into the "Greater Reich" altogether. Japan was also like that. USSR has not annexed a single country as a result of open warfare at all.
But anyway, these old traditions are stupid and in present day world they are practically rendered useless.


He now has a rather remarkable fleet in his hands that grows weekly.
First of all, no he doesn't. For the German fleet to match the British, Germany would have to mobilize its entire economy for vessel production, which is not only impossible, but also extremely dangerous if USSR still awaits in the east with an enormous army at its disposal.
Second of all, as I already pointed out to D_S, the British lost their naval superiority to US historically and and nothing bad happened to Britain because of that. I have yet to see proof why with Germany it would be any different.


Or does he not use his immense and terrifying power to bully every other country into doing what he wants and perhaps encouraging them to install their own rather right-wing regimes in order to cooperate or compete with him.
Why would he do that? Sure, he might encourage them to get rid of their own Jews, but that is normal politics.


what if, in this brutal and bloody theatre of war Hitler gets his hands on the Nuclear Bomb first?
Nothing. Hitler would never use a nuclear bomb against a West-European country. USA would never use it either, unless going total-war versus USSR. It's only those "uncivilized Japs" on whom the bomb could be tested on.

Dark Razor

btw. Kami, I would like to appologize for my rude behaviour
I don't even remember when that happened, so no need to apologize. :)

[demagogic_schizoid]

I don't think, I know. Weimar German government had no particular problem with Jews then Hitler came to power and that changed. Hitler's own ideology of course would not change so rapidly, and there was no reason for it to change.

Hitler had a problem with Jews. Hitler was leader of Germany. The americans have not elected a leader who has a problem with Brits.



So you would trust Americans more than Germans because they speak the same language? Doesn't seem exactly logical to me. By the way, Germans are your relatives too, AFAIK. Your older brothers.

It doesn't have to be logical, because people aren't logical. Americans view themselves as closer to Brits than Germans did int he 1930's, so would be farless likely to support a war against us.



If you grow hostile to their power and declare war on United States, the US will have no choice but to attack you. Again, your failure to see this is inexplicable.

We didn't declare war on Germany in a void. We declared war on Germany because they kept breaking their agreements with us. The USA hasn't done this. Furthermore, I think going to war with Germany lead to a better future for Britain and Western Europe. I don't think going to war with the USA would.



I don't understand you. Why do you think you have the right to declare what is in the interests of the French and Germans?

Why did hitler have the right to invade anyone? We had the right, because we were defeating an agressor. Once a country violates others sovereignity who have not violated anyone else's, they lose their right to their own sovereignity; otherwise there would be no deterrant to violating someone else's sovereignity and imposing your will on them, so it would happen much mroe frequently, so the very thing you criticise Britain for would happen more often. So as you see, your position is self-defeating.


The Nazis were elected by German population. Why would it not be in the interests of the Germans to be ruled by the Nazis? What the fuck do we have democracy for anyway then?

The Poles didn't elect them; the Belgians,Dutch and French didn't elect them when they re-militarising the Rhineland. We have democracy as a means to an end; greater prosperity, greater security, and so that erach generation may live longer, safer, and richer than the last. If some malignant narcissist dictator like Hitler threatens this with his dreams of a fascist Empire, we have every right to crush him like a worm.


If you know what's best for everyone better than anyone else does, why don't you just proclaim a world dictatorship and act it out?
Are you in favor of democracy at all? Or you are only in favor of democracy when it gives the results that you want?

I'm in favour of respecting a nations sovereignity which respects the sovereignity of other nations. And no, I do not support British or American imperialism.


Whether you think that Britain has the right to those posessions does not matter in this case absolutely. An attack on British Canada would mean the same thing to the British governemnt as an attack on Britain itself, and treated similarly. It is an act of same nature.

I don't care what it means to the British governemnt, I care what effect it has on the British people.



Actually they were, and on a much larger scale, but a long time ago.

So in other words, for the purposes of this conversation, they weren't. Do you think I don't know about Manifest Destiny and the slaughter of the nativeAmericans? Of course I do. But this doesn't mean that for the average person in the 1930's and 1940's, life under the Nazis would have been no worse than life under an American superpower.


So you admit that you don't care about Canadians or Australians or anyone else in the commonwealth? They could be just invaded at any time and Britain would not even consider that much of a threat.

This is a ridiculous leap of logic. We were talking about Britain's right to a "possession". Canadians and Australians right to sovereignity is an entirely different matter.



Killing people within your own country doesn't start a war. You were trying to prove that Germany would be more likely to attack Britain than USA because of the nature of modern capitalism, now you go back to the crimes the Nazis committed within their territory. How does it relate?

Because the world is different since 1945. The EU and the USA are both too liberal and democratic for either population to accept a war on the other. The Nazis however would accept a war against people in my region. The americans, in any conceivable future, would not. The situation is just different.



I would never say that. And it's not silly, it is correct. There are still many people who believe that Third Reich is preferrable, and I can't objectively prove them wrong, neither can you, so the label is useless.

I can't prove that having cancer is worse than winning the lottery. But I think we can make this judgement. Similairly, the Third Reich was worse than the EU.


At first you say that pacifism is preventing bloodshed worldwide by any means less bloody, then you say that you are in favor of preventing bloodshed worldwide by any means less bloody, then you say you are not a pacifist. Where's a problem?

The problem is that this was not my definition of pacifism. My definition of pacifism was that it propopses to reduce violence by never allowing its own side to use violence. I say this will simply allow more violent alternatives to prevail. I would prefer to support a lesser evil, which employs some vioelnce to deter more violent alternatives.


Why not? That is your own ideology taken to a more extreme level. You accepted some 62,000,000 human casualties and a heckload of destruction in order to bring liberalism to western Germany and Italy. After that, it seems only logical that you favor Bolshevik-style struggle for utopia.

Not every position has to be taken to its logical extreme. There is such a thing as common sense.



I'll list a short summary of the problems:
1. You've still not disproven the fact that US is and was in 1930s a much bigger potential threat to Britain than Germany, yet it was Germany that had to be declared war on.

I don't need to disprove it; Germany bombed us, the USA didn't. And even if the USA did invade us, it would be ebtter than being invaded by the Nazis, because the Nazis were by fare more inhumane to their enemies than the USA is. Simply look at the statistics during the time of the USA's time as world superpower: compare deaths caused by US bombs and invasions, and even US backed coups, since 1945, with the Holocaust. In the short time the Holocaust lasted, the Nazis did far more damage than the US has done. Considering that less people being killed is better than more people beingkilled, I'd rather be invaded by the USA than the Nazis. So therefore, the USA is less of a threat on average to each individual British citizen.



Expalin to me the opposite:
Why would you support the defeat of a destructive and genocidal regime, if it doesn't threaten you personally?

Because only by showing destructive genocidal regimes that the whole world will oppose their attempts to impose their will on others, can we ensure the continued discouragement of genocidal and destrcutive regimes across the world, including in my own coutnry and in those which might one day threaten it. Call it making an example of someone. If I don't help my neighbour when he's being robbed, then a.) burglars will know my neighbourhood is easy to rob and b.) my neighbours will less likely to help me should I ever need it.



Waoh, if so then you must be really really in favor of going to war against USA. :) And against yourself too. You are being hypocritical.

I think us going to wa with the USA would cause more deaths than it would prevent. Each situation should be analysed through a cost-benefit analysis. The USA is not as bad as Nazi Germany, and defeating it in a war would be harder than defeating Nazi Germany.



The point is painfully obvious: people are different and they don't want the stuff that you want AT ALL. So you don't have a moral right to tell them what is right and what is wrong for them.

Bullshit. Human beings are organised colelctively. Everyone is being told what to do by someone. Societies could not operate without some kind of coercion or imposition of a vision by a central leader. However, people should have as much of a voice in this as possible, and the nature of the leadership should be as beneficial as possible in terms of providing security, respecting human rights, creating prosperity and improving such things as life-expectancy and health. On all these counts, the EU and the USA trump Nazi Germany.

[LongSilence]

LongSilence

Chiefly because that would go against a stupid, but nonetheless an established centuries-old European tradition of not taking too much trophy from war against a civilized power. Going against that tradition at the end of WW1 would make them look bad-ass within the eyes of powers like US, which (at that time) followed this tradition to the point of extreme stupidity.

Germany and Japan and USSR also actually cared about these old traditions, believe it or not, they were not all "Vae Victis" rampagers. However the German definition of who was civilized and who wasn't was a little different. When Germans defeated France - they forced only token territorial concessions, when they went to war against Poland - they permanently annexed it into the "Greater Reich" altogether. Japan was also like that. USSR has not annexed a single country as a result of open warfare at all.
But anyway, these old traditions are stupid and in present day world they are practically rendered useless.


First of all, no he doesn't. For the German fleet to match the British, Germany would have to mobilize its entire economy for vessel production, which is not only impossible, but also extremely dangerous if USSR still awaits in the east with an enormous army at its disposal.
Second of all, as I already pointed out to D_S, the British lost their naval superiority to US historically and and nothing bad happened to Britain because of that. I have yet to see proof why with Germany it would be any different.


Why would he do that? Sure, he might encourage them to get rid of their own Jews, but that is normal politics.





In this fictional alternative history we are playing with:

1) I'm talking about Germany's actions and influence after defeating the USSR, which its easy to assume that left undisturbed by the Allies and with undeniable technological and military superiority they would achieve. Only then would I imagine Hitler turning his attention to the rest of the world and dreaming of spreading his fascism elsewhere. After all, we can all agree that's would be the obvious next step, particularly as you say that all ideologies seek to spread.

Furthermore with Russian and Germany production I don't think he'd even need to invade Britain to get them to cowtow to his wishes. Even the politicians with control of the mighty British Empire would have to think twice about challenging the country that had just conquered and set up a puppet in Russia. Not to mention that if Stalin had shown any of his trademark stubbornness Mother Russia would have run Red with the blood of his communist defenders. Unless Britain got itself its own charismatic authoritarian leader I would only imagine a democratic government crumbling at the thought of suffering such monstrous casualties. And if they chose to fight on they stood little chance alone in a war of ballistic attrition. Especially when Germany could supposedly rely on Russian military support and research skills.

2) Its their methods that are really the issue here. Its conceivable that Hitler would not have seen invasion of Britain and USA as necessary, but only if they began to act not unaccording to his wishes and ideals pretty sharpish. Please think about it- Hitler, like Stalin though perhaps with slightly less paranoia, had his political enemies eliminated and would take control of forces he saw as potential threats or just obstacles. By and large democratic politicians can't do that [well, if you insist on arguing this- they at least can't do it prolifically or with any sort of openness]. Why did he attack Russia? Because he personally wanted to. Was it the most sensible move at the time? Not at all. Thus Britain would have had to have toed his line pretty finely. This may not be the point you were making- you may just be saying that Britain could have remained an apparently powerful nation. That might be true but they would have almost certainly had to sacrifice a great deal of their independence, democracy and any inclination they may have had for any sort of socialist policies.


Nothing. Hitler would never use a nuclear bomb against a West-European country. USA would never use it either, unless going total-war versus USSR. It's only those "uncivilized Japs" on whom the bomb could be tested on.

3) [An extension but i feel it deserves its own point] Please. How can you say that with any surety? Why the hell would he not do so? Hitler may not have been a completely insane maniac that some like to assume he was but he was definitely not sane. He was prone to fits of rage and obsessiveness. He was an idealist with enormous illusions of grandeur. Bush could never employ the Bomb nowadays unless in dire circumstances because of the power of the public response. Would Hitler with his almost absolute authority have such concerns? No.

4) To put it simply- Liberal governments talk with money, Authoritarian governments with force. Liberal countries may try to influence the politics of other nations with lots and lots of money and maybe some expertise but historically they stop short of actually sending their own soldiers in to make sure things go just the way they want. If USA, Britain and France had had more self-sure and authoritarian governments they probably would have placed their own puppets in control of Post-WWI Germany and almost definitely would have put a stop to Hitler's rise and his destruction of the Weimar democracy. Who suggested they used force to get rid of him? An authoritarian. Who probably considered the idea but really didn't like the sound of how violent it was? Democrats. Likewise, why hasn't the US done something strong-handed about Cuba that lies so very close them?

In short, Liberals don't really like war. They can only really justify it to themselves if its in defence or retaliation. Authoritarians have never needed such justification. A whole host of reasons had to be conjured for the West's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, not just 'We're gonna give those poor bastards the joy of Democracy if they like it or not!!'. They were retaliations for 9/11 [some Arabs drove a couple of planes as missiles into New York City... NEW YORK CITY!!! Let's get them!!], in defence of national security [they're hiding and training terrorists, they've got anthrax and other WMDs that could attack US at any minute!!!] etc.

[Kami]

The americans have not elected a leader who has a problem with Brits.
The Germans have not elected a leader who had a problem with Brits either. What's the problem?


Americans view themselves as closer to Brits than Germans did int he 1930's, so would be farless likely to support a war against us.
How can you state with such certainty whether German or American governments viewed themselves closer to Britain? After all it was not America but Germany which had a concept of superior Aryan heritage which included both Germany and Britain.


We had the right, because we were defeating an agressor.
1) Why? What makes you think this is your right? Who told you that it is your right? God?
Once again, this is your goddamn ideology which you are trying to impose on others who don't agree with you at all.
2) If you think this is your right, then why do you excercize it so selectively?
Britain itself has gone to war and took over plenty of nations in its history and went unpunished. This is clear hypocricy.


So as you see, your position is self-defeating.
Sigh. You don't really understand my point of view at all, do you? My "position" does not exist. For the purposes of this discussion I don't care if many countries get invaded or just one, I am asking you what gives you the right to go and intervene in other nations business when it doesn't concearn you at all.


We have democracy as a means to an end; greater prosperity, greater security, and so that erach generation may live longer, safer, and richer than the last.
HAHA. So you basically have just admitted that you only accept the results of a democracy if you like them, and if they don't suit your ideology, then you ignore them! You could as well be in favor of a dictatorship, no difference.:theclap:


I care what effect it has on the British people.
And other people who were under British jurisdiction didn't deserve the right to be cared about or something?


that for the average person in the 1930's and 1940's, life under the Nazis would have been no worse than life under an American superpower.
For the average person in the 1930's and 1940's, life under the Nazis was no worse than life under an American superpower. Germans loved Hitler. Some other people might have not, but that was not British business and Britain had no "moral right" to declare that Germany was "wrong", declare war and go in and bomb the shit out of everything until the Germany (or at least half of it) accepted British worldview.


The americans, in any conceivable future, would not.
Oh sure they would! If there's a need to fight Britain, the media will make sure that in a few months the American people will be clamoring for war against Britain and urging their government to take action.


But I think we can make this judgement.
No you can't. Because if you do, I'll make the opposite judgement and then try to fight you because you don't believe in the same thing as I do. If I happen to die of cancer, this is my problem - not yours.


My definition of pacifism was that it propopses to reduce violence by never allowing its own side to use violence. I say this will simply allow more violent alternatives to prevail.
If your definition of pacifism is the same as the pacifists themselves use, then you are right: pacifism goes against its own purpose and is therefore an inherently failed ideology.


I don't need to disprove it
This can mean only one thing:
1. You fail to disprove it
Ok then, let's drop this part of the argument since really it only sums up to your ideological preference and no objectivity.


Because only by showing destructive genocidal regimes that the whole world will oppose their attempts to impose their will on others
Once again, these "others" do not include you, and you know that they will never include you.
Therefore, you are supporting an agression and destruction of an agressive and destructive world power just because it is an agressive and destructive world power. Lol. :theclap:


Human beings are organised colelctively. Everyone is being told what to do by someone. Societies could not operate without some kind of coercion or imposition of a vision by a central leader. However, people should have as much of a voice in this as possible, and the nature of the leadership should be as beneficial as possible in terms of providing security, respecting human rights, creating prosperity and improving such things as life-expectancy and health. On all these counts, the EU and the USA trump Nazi Germany.
In other words, you either refused to read the article or refused to understand it.
Just because you want something, it doesn't mean other people do. Other people DO NOT WANT to have as much voice as possible, they don't want to have security, human rights, prosperity, life expectancy, or health. Or their understanding of those things and how to achieve them is entirely different from yours. (e.g. "we will only have better security, life expectancy, or health if we get rid of all the Jews and Communists!"). The Soviet Union and United States nearly went to war against each other because their understanding of the word "democracy" was different, but they both believed in it so sacredly that they were prepared to wipe each other out (and the rest of the world too) at any time.
Please read the article again and try to understand it this time.

LongSilence

I'm talking about Germany's actions and influence after defeating the USSR, which its easy to assume that left undisturbed by the Allies and with undeniable technological and military superiority they would achieve.
It would probably take decades for Germany to actually achieve some kind of peace with USSR. The Germans had no ability to go beyond the Ural mountains and they knew that perfectly. The plan was to go up to the mountains and then just hold the line.


Furthermore with Russian and Germany production I don't think he'd even need to invade Britain to get them to cowtow to his wishes.
That's correct, but hey - it is only natural relations between two countries of uneven power. Not any better or worse than the relation between present day Britain and USA.


Was it the most sensible move at the time?
I would actually argue that it was the most sensible move out of the options he had, but this is besides the point.


That might be true but they would have almost certainly had to sacrifice a great deal of their independence, democracy and any inclination they may have had for any sort of socialist policies.
Can't you say pretty much the same thing (with the exception of the word "democracy", since US likes it) about the result of the British-US relationship?


Bush could never employ the Bomb nowadays unless in dire circumstances because of the power of the public response.
Same exact thing with Hitler. If you think Hitler didn't care about public response - you are wrong, he did. Even the most ruthless dictator needs the public support and needs allies in the world. Dropping a nuclear bomb on any major city in Western Europe would have put an end to his popularity in Europe in general, and perhaps even at home in Germany.
Secondly, why do you think Hitler refused to use poison gas against his enemies even though Germany had it in abundance? Out of the fear that this same gas would be used against Germany too. With nukes it is even more clear - one bomb on a German city would be a huge catastrophy for Germany, and Hitler loved Germany too much to let that happen.

[demagogic_schizoid]

How can you state with such certainty whether German or American governments viewed themselves closer to Britain? After all it was not America but Germany which had a concept of superior Aryan heritage which included both Germany and Britain.

I can state with certainty that Americans today like Brits more than 1930's Germans did.


1) Why? What makes you think this is your right? Who told you that it is your right? God?
Once again, this is your goddamn ideology which you are trying to impose on others who don't agree with you at all.

They do agree. Take a poll of Europeans, and see how many are unhappy that we defeated the Nazis.


2) If you think this is your right, then why do you excercize it so selectively?
Britain itself has gone to war and took over plenty of nations in its history and went unpunished. This is clear hypocricy.

I don't support Britain's right to do that. I don't support Germany's right to do that. When having to choose between the British Empire and the Nazi Empire, I'd choose the british Empire, for all the utilitarian reasons already given.


Sigh. You don't really understand my point of view at all, do you? My "position" does not exist.

Then it's impossible to have a proper conversation with you, as anyone can simply refute everything the other person says as long as they don't have to stay consistent to anything themselves.


For the purposes of this discussion I don't care if many countries get invaded or just one,.

That's ridiculous then, it's like me saying "for the purposes of this discussion about economics, I don't care if people starve or are fed, I oly want to know what gives you the right to to enforce a policy which someone somewhere may disagree with".


HAHA. So you basically have just admitted that you only accept the results of a democracy if you like them, and if they don't suit your ideology, then you ignore them!

No, I only favour an ideology when it's beneficial to humanity. "Democracy" is something you appear not to understand. It's not the right of the German people to decide that Poland is theirs.


You could as well be in favor of a dictatorship, no difference.:theclap:

Possibly. So far I haven't been, to my knowledge.



And other people who were under British jurisdiction didn't deserve the right to be cared about or something?

Nah, you just didn't get my point. Never mind, nothing new under the sun.



For the average person in the 1930's and 1940's, life under the Nazis was no worse than life under an American superpower.

Of course it was. Total up the deaths caused by each, and average them out across the population.


Germans loved Hitler. Some other people might have not, but that was not British business and Britain had no "moral right" to declare that Germany was "wrong", declare war and go in and bomb the shit out of everything until the Germany (or at least half of it) accepted British worldview.

It wasn't about Germany accepting British worldview, it was about defeting the genocidal Nazi dictatorship and making Europe a more secure and propserous place.



No you can't. Because if you do, I'll make the opposite judgement and then try to fight you because you don't believe in the same thing as I do. If I happen to die of cancer, this is my problem - not yours.

Umm, yes, but if I was given the power of God, and given a list of 100 people, who I could not ask their opinion on the matter, but who I could either give cancer to or give a winning lottery ticket to, I think we both now which would be the nicer thing to do.


If your definition of pacifism is the same as the pacifists themselves use, then you are right: pacifism goes against its own purpose and is therefore an inherently failed ideology.

You admit that I'm right then. Finally.



Therefore, you are supporting an agression and destruction of an agressive and destructive world power just because it is an agressive and destructive world power. Lol. :theclap:

Yes, I support some aggression and destruction in order to prevent a higher level of aggression and destruction. As I said all along.




Just because you want something, it doesn't mean other people do. Other people DO NOT WANT to have as much voice as possible, they don't want to have security, human rights, prosperity, life expectancy, or health.

If you talk to most people, this is what they say they want.


Or their understanding of those things and how to achieve them is entirely different from yours. (e.g. "we will only have better security, life expectancy, or health if we get rid of all the Jews and Communists!").

Yes, their understanding of how to acheive these things is different, this I accept. Does that mean I have to accept as valid an opinion based on false premises such as The Protocols of the Elders Of Zion or some fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible or the Quran? Of course not. Those people are mistaken and they won't achieve higher living standards. Liberal capitalism and social democracy can achieve higher living standards. As Robert Greene said, it's best to win by actions, not by words. Bomb the shit out of the wacky fundamentalists and Nazis, then put in place a sane governemnt, back them up for years, and wait and see how they win the people round simply by making their lives better,. As happened in Germany and Japan.


The Soviet Union and United States nearly went to war against each other because their understanding of the word "democracy" was different, but they both believed in it so sacredly that they were prepared to wipe each other out (and the rest of the world too) at any time.
Please read the article again and try to understand it this time.

I understood it kami, it's the kind of thing I'd have written in tenth grade. It really doesn't relate that much to this discussion, because my position isn't as "utopian" or optimistic as you imagine.

[Architectonic]

I'll list a short summary of the problems:
1. You've still not disproven the fact that US is and was in 1930s a much bigger potential threat to Britain than Germany, yet it was Germany that had to be declared war on.

You can't be serious? What kind of wacked out definition of threat (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/threat) are you using?


"Democracy" is something you appear not to understand. It's not the right of the German people to decide that Poland is theirs.

Exactly - Kami doesn't seem to understand that many of Hitler's methods were not democratic in the first place - and to that end, Fascists are basically antipolitical.

[Ferrus]

The point is painfully obvious: people are different and they don't want the stuff that you want AT ALL. So you don't have a moral right to tell them what is right and what is wrong for them.
The problem is - in order for human society to work on some level - there has to be someone telling everyone else what is wrong for them, even if it is utterly arbitary.

[LongSilence]

Perhaps its time someone came into this thread and told people when they have hopelessly digressed from the original point...

[Ferrus]

Perhaps its time someone came into this thread and told people when they have hopelessly digressed from the original point...
And? If we have digressed it is because the original point was not sufficiently piquant to engage our attentions and so we moved on, sequentially I may add, to greener swards.

[LongSilence]

And? If we have digressed it is because the original point was not sufficiently piquant to engage our attentions and so we moved on, sequentially I may add, to greener swards.

And perhaps I was merely suggesting that it might be time for another such digression. Though of course I only speak for myself.

[Ferrus]

Fascists are basically antipolitical.
Eh? Politics = democracy?

[Kami]

I can state with certainty that Americans today like Brits more than 1930's Germans did.
My question: why do you believe that A=B?
Your answer: because I can say with certainty that A=B.
Nice answer :)


Take a poll of Europeans, and see how many are unhappy that we defeated the Nazis.
Haha, sure, after 60 years of anti-Nazi propaganda they will have no choice but to say so. In fact, if they dare to say otherwise they might as well be jailed.


as anyone can simply refute everything the other person says as long as they don't have to stay consistent to anything themselves.
I am consistent with my disagreement with your absolutist belief that defeating Nazi Germany was somehow better than not defeating it.


for the purposes of this discussion about economics, I don't care if people starve or are fed, I oly want to know what gives you the right to to enforce a policy which someone somewhere may disagree with.
Exactly. And your repeated usage of word "ridiculous" is neither a proof nor an excuse.


I only favour an ideology when it's beneficial to humanity.
Once again, you cannot speak for humanity. Different people have different views on what is better for them.


"Democracy" is something you appear not to understand. It's not the right of the German people to decide that Poland is theirs.
Oh really? Why not? Democracy is the system of government in which the opinion of the majority of electorate is translated into laws and policies.
If it is the opinion of the majority of German electorate is that Poland must be invaded - Germany must invade Poland.
If it is the opinion of the majority of US electorate is that Iraq must be invaded - US must invade Iraq.
This is democracy. What you are expressing here is an attempt to tie liberalism with democracy as if they are somehow the same thing.
Liberalism is an ideology (and a rather vague one too, to say the least). Democracy is a system of government.


Total up the deaths caused by each, and average them out across the population.
And how would that prove that life under Third Reich was worse than under EU or USA?


It wasn't about Germany accepting British worldview, it was about defeting the genocidal Nazi dictatorship and making Europe a more secure and propserous place.
In this case at least, defeating a genocidal Nazi dictatorship and making Europe a more secure and propserous place = accepting British worldview.


I think we both now which would be the nicer thing to do.
What I think or what you think on the matter doesn't prove anything. It absolutely doesn't have to be the same thing as someone else thinks. And even if 100% of world population happens to think a certain way, this still isn't right or wrong - it is just the opinion of 100% of world population and that is all.


If you talk to most people, this is what they say they want.
Because they were taught these values in liberal schools, they were raised by liberal parents and talked to liberal friends and watched/read liberal media.
Of course under such conditions they are more likely to want the same thing as you and I want than something else. Yet it does not prove that liberal worldview is better than any other.


Does that mean I have to accept as valid an opinion
What do you mean by "accept as valid"? If you mean agreeing or sympathizing with the opinion - then no you don't have to sympathize with it at all. You just have to acknowlege the right of a person to hold such opinion.


because my position isn't as "utopian" or optimistic as you imagine.
I don't really see your position as either utiopian or optimistic. I see your position as absolutist. I see you as a person who refuses to acknowlege that just because you or me or someone else or even everyone happens to agree on some values - it doesn't make them better or worse at all.



Architectonic

What kind of wacked out definition of threat are you using?
I am using the term "potential threat". Not actual threat (which would not apply to either germany or usa prior to hostilities).


Fascists are basically antipolitical.
I'm not sure I understand what you meant here. Anti-intellectual maybe? Yes, perhaps. But anti-political? Wtf?

Ferrus

The problem is - in order for human society to work on some level - there has to be someone telling everyone else what is wrong for them, even if it is utterly arbitary.
This is true, someone must be setting the rules of what is right and wrong for the rest of population (and by "someone" here of course I don't mean one specific person or anything of that sort). However when engaged in intellectual discussion, I want people to realize and acknowlege that these "right" and "wrong" are not fundamental human values, they are just something you've been taught by your society to accept as right or wrong to maintain order and prevent anarchy.

I do acknowlege that force was always used and will always be used to maintain order both in a society and in the world as a whole, however I resist the attempts to justify this use of force. In this discussion I'm basically questioning the moral right of a person or a country to enforce his/its view on another through force.

[demagogic_schizoid]

My question: why do you believe that A=B?

That wasn't your question old boy. You asked me to prove something different to what I had stated. My argument went more like this:

A implies B
C implies D


I can state with certainty, for the reasons already given, that X posseses quality A and Y posseses quality C. So it's more likely X will do action B and Y will do action D.

You: Ha! you can't PROVE that even though X did B and Y did D, that X necessairlly must do B and Y necessarilly must always do D, so I win!



Haha, sure, after 60 years of anti-Nazi propaganda they will have no choice but to say so. In fact, if they dare to say otherwise they might as well be jailed.

In the context of your question, it doesn't matter if people want what they want because of propaganda, because yous imply said people "don't want what I want", when in fact, the vast majority do support the same action I am defending. You insinuated that they didn't, hence my rebuttal. If you then want to whine about the reasons why you were wrong, that's another matter, and frankly not one I'm particularly fascinated by.


I am consistent with my disagreement with your absolutist belief that defeating Nazi Germany was somehow better than not defeating it.

You have no consistent criteria. This allows you to say Britain is wrong to impose its world-view and in the same breath to say that there is nothing wrong with Nazi Germany imposing its own world-view.



Once again, you cannot speak for humanity. Different people have different views on what is better for them.

So I can't speak for humanity, but your tenth grade article on Mogadishu can? We can make general assumptions without implying that every single person is the same. Without generalisations of any kind, any discussion of this scale is impossible.


Oh really? Why not? Democracy is the system of government in which the opinion of the majority of electorate is translated into laws and policies.If it is the opinion of the majority of German electorate is that Poland must be invaded - Germany must invade Poland.
If it is the opinion of the majority of US electorate is that Iraq must be invaded - US must invade Iraq.

There are different forms of democracy. You obviousy have bnever studied politics and have never learnt about liberal democracy, representative demcoracy, parliamentary democracy or constitutonal democracy. You definition of democracy is very absolutist. If we take *any* notice of public opinion, you seem to think, then we must always obey public opinion to ridiculous extremes. It's you who is absolutist, not me. You appear to have no sense of moderation or of workable compromises.


This is democracy. What you are expressing here is an attempt to tie liberalism with democracy as if they are somehow the same thing.
Liberalism is an ideology (and a rather vague one too, to say the least). Democracy is a system of government.

It has nothing to do with liberalism, it is about one country having to respect anothers sovereignity if they want their own sovereignity to be respected, as I already explained with the burglar analogy. I'm sorry you can't see the logic there, but it says more baout you than it does about me.



And how would that prove that life under Third Reich was worse than under EU or USA?

It doesn't conclusively prove naything, it's just evidence which peiople can use to make their own minds up. I'm confident the vast majority would agree with me. If you have different criteria to what is "good" or "bad" than me, there's hardly anything I can do about that. However I don't have to "respect" your criteria if your actions cause more harm than good for others, by such criteria as prosperity, security, right to life, freedom of expression, etc. Societies operate based on laws, on coercion and co-operation, and on imposition of certain values. Human beings couldn't coherently operate outside of these. When you step beyond the boundaries established, you'll have to fight. I personally will judge, by your views, by the effect of your actions, by the chances of you succeeding, and by your ideology, whether or not to support you. If I choose not to, then I'll happily watch as the state, or a collection of states, use force to defeat you, just like they did with hitler, when his problems became his neighbours problems.

After all, if I substitued your rule for theirs, I'd just be substituing one form of imposition for another, so why should I hinder the effort to crush you in the name of opposing "imposition", when the actual effect of this would be aid the establishment of a less toelrable, by my criteria, "imposition" on your part. This is the dilemma you have never answered.



In this case at least, defeating a genocidal Nazi dictatorship and making Europe a more secure and propserous place = accepting British worldview.

Well 1.) I'm fine with that and 2.) it's not really even true as prosperity and secutrity are desired by the vast majority of all people, and 3.) we were not "imposing a British worldview" were simply imposing certain boundaries acknowledged by most people of most nationalities by that time. If we'd been imposing a British world-view, the nwestern Europe would have had to serve British interest after World War 2 at the expense of their, which it most certainly did not. Ever heard of Charles de Gaulle?


What I think or what you think on the matter doesn't prove anything. It absolutely doesn't have to be the same thing as someone else thinks. And even if 100% of world population happens to think a certain way, this still isn't right or wrong - it is just the opinion of 100% of world population and that is all.

This is just semantics and it can in fact be used to invalidate any possible discussion on current affairs or history. You said most people don't want what I want. You were wrong. Live with it.


Because they were taught these values in liberal schools, they were raised by liberal parents and talked to liberal friends and watched/read liberal media.
Of course under such conditions they are more likely to want the same thing as you and I want than something else. Yet it does not prove that liberal worldview is better than any other.

It's better to have the chance to live longer, to live safer, and to be more prosperous. I'm not taking that back. If you object to my wording I suggest you stop imagining that I somehow "can't understand" your relativism, as opposed to having simply outgrown it and having accepted certain criteria about "better" and "worse", so that I may actually be able to function in the real world and move on to more interesting topics.



What do you mean by "accept as valid"? If you mean agreeing or sympathizing with the opinion - then no you don't have to sympathize with it at all. You just have to acknowlege the right of a person to hold such opinion.

Why do I have to acknowledge their right? That sounds rather absolutist. It's a completely abstract point anyway because it hardly matters to anyone whether little old me on my computer "acknowledges someone's right" to an opinion; the point only ever matters if I ever get the power to do something about it. Right now, I can have my opinion whether or not you acknowledge it, and vice versa, so it's quite irrelevant whether we do acknowledge them

Anyway, I do, for what it's worth, acknowledge someone's right to think whatever they want to think; however I don't acknowledge their right to do anything they like. Obviously you don't either, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against any action taken, ever.



I don't really see your position as either utiopian or optimistic. I see your position as absolutist. I see you as a person who refuses to acknowlege that just because you or me or someone else or even everyone happens to agree on some values - it doesn't make them better or worse at all.

I've explained to you my criteria. I've made it clear that I use "better" or "worse" in relation to how an action serves the criteria I explained. If you ever vote or join the political discourse in favour of a policy, Kami, you too will be acting on preconceived notions of "better" and "worse", and attempting to enforce collective adherence to your criteria. For practical purposes then, you may as well admit that you're doing exactly what you criticise me for. Whether or not you use the words "better" and "worse" is merely semantics, because in your mind you've clearly made that distinction, or else you would never act on it.

Perhaps you object to my way of expressing myself, but I don't believe in sugar coating my views; if I'm expressing my opinion, obviously I think I'm right and you're wrong and my course of action is "better" than yours and I would in many cases like to see a government enforce my policy despite your objections, so I may as well admit it and tell you that I think my view is better than yours. If you want a discussion on the nature of "better" or worse", then I suggest maybe the philosophy section is a better place for it; because here in Current affairs, I thinkt here is a tacit acceptance that people are arguing based on their own subjective criteria, and that they are prepared to make value judgements that certain actions are better than others.

To question this fundamental approach is to question the entire poltiical discourse and would in fact reduce every thread here to the same discussion. And personally, when I made htis thread, this was not the topic I intended to discuss, so if you'll excuse me, I'll leave to your own devices,a nd bid you good luck should you choose to make a topic on "relativism vs absolutism" in Piholosophy and Spirituality (and no doubt you will expose your own absolutist belief in relativism in the process).

[apple]

Originally Posted by Architectonic View Post

Fascists are basically antipolitical.



Eh? Politics = democracy?

:lol:

I think perhaps architectonic meant: fascists are basically anti-liberal

[Kami]

You asked me to prove something different to what I had stated.
If so, I will repeat my question using the same words you used:
How can you state with certainty that Americans today like Brits more than 1930's Germans did?
Is this clear enough? By the way, it shouldn't really matter how much they like britain today - it matters how much they liked it in 1930s.


because yous imply said people "don't want what I want", when in fact, the vast majority do support the same action I am defending.
You've interpreted my statement wrongly. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population today supporting your action. I said that in 1930s there were people, called nazis, and their sympathizers, both within and outside Germany, who did not want to fight war against Britain just because the British worldview was different from Nazi German. Their views were different from yours. Clear now?


but your tenth grade article on Mogadishu can
First of all, why tenth grade? What is that obsession with tenth grade now?
Secon of all, no it cannot, and it doesn't try to.
Since apparently you still haven't gotten what it is talking about, I'll try to explain:
A. The media tells us that some things are true for everyone (and you repeat it on this forum)
B. People around the author and people from Mogadishu exhibit behavior and values that are radically different, thus disproving the claim.

At no point does the article attempt to say that anything is true for everyone.


You obviousy have bnever studied politics and have never learnt about liberal democracy, representative demcoracy, parliamentary democracy or constitutonal democracy.
Your assumption is false, and moreover irrelevant.


If we take *any* notice of public opinion, you seem to think, then we must always obey public opinion to ridiculous extremes.
Yes, of course. Then you would be completely democratic.


It's you who is absolutist, not me. You appear to have no sense of moderation or of workable compromises.
Nope. I don't hold my values as absolute for humanity, unlike you.
However I do hold the word democracy to its only logical definition - rule of the majority. Any deviation from this makes you less democratic. There are different forms of democracy, true, but they all revolve around the same idea of majority rule.


It has nothing to do with liberalism, it is about one country having to respect anothers sovereignity if they want their own sovereignity to be respected
All right, you are beginning to get on my nerves now. What the hell?
THE NOTION OF RESPECTING SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER STATES IS PART OF LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY. It is not fucking hard to understand at all.


If you have different criteria to what is "good" or "bad" than me
As I have said I recognize no such universal criteria at all.
In all likelyhood I would have been killed if I lived in Nazi Germany or subjected to hard labor. But that would not make nazi germany any better or worse.


Societies operate based on laws, on coercion and co-operation, and on imposition of certain values.
Which is exactly what I said in my previous post. And I will copy a sentence from it now just to clarify what I am arguing here.
"I do acknowlege that force was always used and will always be used to maintain order both in a society and in the world as a whole, however I resist the attempts to justify this use of force. In this discussion I'm basically questioning the moral right of a person or a country to enforce his/its view on another through force."


why should I hinder the effort to crush you in the name of opposing "imposition", when the actual effect of this would be aid the establishment of a less toelrable
There is no dillema here. You do what you want to do, but don't try to justify your actions with some god-given moral right to do something.


I'm fine with that
Good for you.


it's not really even true as prosperity and secutrity are desired by the vast majority of all people
...people who elected Nazis in the first place.


we were not "imposing a British worldview" were simply imposing certain boundaries acknowledged by most people of most nationalities by that time.
Yes, you were imposing British worldview to every extent you possibly could. If it was really in the interest of the Western allies to permanently occupy West Germany, you would have, but it wasn't.


You said most people don't want what I want.
Where did I say that? I demand a quote.
You keep declaring me wrong about something I never claimed to be true.


You were wrong
Your statement does not make me wrong.


I'm not taking that back.
Congratulations. You could as well say: "I believe in God! I have no proof that God exists, but I know that he exists and I am not taking that back!"


It's a completely abstract point anyway because it hardly matters to anyone whether little old me on my computer "acknowledges someone's right" to an opinion; the point only ever matters if I ever get the power to do something about it.
You alone cannot, but when a group of absolutists such as yourself get to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world then shit happens.


Obviously you don't either, otherwise you wouldn't be arguing against any action taken, ever.
I will repeat that I am not arguing against the action, I'm arguing against your justification of this action. Please understand this fairly simple difference.

[Ferrus]

This is true, someone must be setting the rules of what is right and wrong for the rest of population (and by "someone" here of course I don't mean one specific person or anything of that sort). However when engaged in intellectual discussion, I want people to realize and acknowlege that these "right" and "wrong" are not fundamental human values, they are just something you've been taught by your society to accept as right or wrong to maintain order and prevent anarchy.

I do acknowlege that force was always used and will always be used to maintain order both in a society and in the world as a whole, however I resist the attempts to justify this use of force. In this discussion I'm basically questioning the moral right of a person or a country to enforce his/its view on another through force.
Fair point, that aligns with my perspective. However, I think what actually goes about forming the moral hegemony that society enforces is very interesting. A heady admixture of tradition, enviromental factors, evolutionary imperatives and the human psyche, especially affectively, which are often hard to seperate.

[LongSilence]

I will repeat that I am not arguing against the action, I'm arguing against your justification of this action. Please understand this fairly simple difference.

And what I've been trying to argue is that with the case you are using your argument becomes against the justification of defending a way of life. A world where dictators like Hitlers are allowed to remain in power of world powers is an uneasy one where liberal governments are either pushed out of power by the enemy or by the people themselves in order to put in a party more effective at defending themselves against the other nation's threat.

I think the 'anti-political' statement might have tried to mean that Fascists tend to use methods and attitudes that are against what are currently employed on the political stage. There is no denying liberal governments are themselves coercive and sometimes forceful in their engagements with other nations but they are not so militarily-minded. Their military productions and exercises are more often than not reactionary. It tends not to be as much so with Fascists.

I maintain that the world would have be very different today for all if Britain had not helped defeat the Nazis. Like you I cannot say for sure it would have been necessarily worse, but I can almost guarantee that there would be fewer civil rights for the majority, there almost definitely would have been more bloodshed and surely a lot more fear. We would probably today have a lot less respect for the idea of equality for all and those moral rules you speak about would probably now be a whole deal stricter in some ways, though also perhaps more lax in others.

[Ferrus]

I think the 'anti-political' statement might have tried to mean that Fascists tend to use methods and attitudes that are against what are currently employed on the political stage.
Which are themselves political actions. To assume that politics only consists of what occurs under the aegis of liberal democratic institutions if what I like to call the 'Bernard Crick' fallacy - for he states much the same in A Defence of Politics. The fallacy does have a venerable past, what with the embryotic form of it present in Aristotle's comparative analysis of political constitutions and his very specific moral definition of what 'politics' is.

[demagogic_schizoid]

If so, I will repeat my question using the same words you used:
How can you state with certainty that Americans today like Brits more than 1930's Germans did?
Is this clear enough? By the way, it shouldn't really matter how much they like britain today - it matters how much they liked it in 1930s.

It already told you why. You have the memory of a gold-fish.


You've interpreted my statement wrongly. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population today supporting your action. I said that in 1930s there were people, called nazis, and their sympathizers, both within and outside Germany, who did not want to fight war against Britain just because the British worldview was different from Nazi German. Their views were different from yours. Clear now?

And we didn't want to fight a war against them "just because their world-view was different from ours".



First of all, why tenth grade? What is that obsession with tenth grade now?
Secon of all, no it cannot, and it doesn't try to.
Since apparently you still haven't gotten what it is talking about, I'll try to explain:
A. The media tells us that some things are true for everyone (and you repeat it on this forum)
B. People around the author and people from Mogadishu exhibit behavior and values that are radically different, thus disproving the claim.

At no point does the article attempt to say that anything is true for everyone.

He says this:


Myth #5: People want democracy and peace and all that kind of stuff.
No. In fact, HELL no!

So people don't want peace and democracy. That looks like a statement about "people" to me.


Nope. I don't hold my values as absolute for humanity, unlike you.
However I do hold the word democracy to its only logical definition - rule of the majority.

That's not the only logical definition, it's just a crude definition for angst ridden little kids who can't face the real world with all its "phonies" and "hypocrites" (ie, people who accept workable compromises). When most people talk about demcoracy, they mean what I mean, not what ou mean. Yes, your definition has some validity in the crudest sense. But for the purposes of most conversations, when people say demcoracy, they are using something closer to my definition. You might want to learn this to prevent future misunderstandings.


Any deviation from this makes you less democratic. There are different forms of democracy, true, but they all revolve around the same idea of majority rule.

Any deviation from this does not make you less demcoratic, because a certain restriction of "democracy" is necessarry in order for it to operate. Supporting pushing democracy to such illogical extremes that it means one country has the right to deny the demcoratic rights of all other nations is childish and would result int he collapse of democracy; hardly democratic.


All right, you are beginning to get on my nerves now. What the hell?
THE NOTION OF RESPECTING SOVEREIGNTY OF OTHER STATES IS PART OF LIBERAL PHILOSOPHY. It is not fucking hard to understand at all.

It's not hard to understand, it's just not true. Nations respecting each others sovereignity is just like human beings respecting each others right to exist; not liberal philosophy, just a pragmatic way for people to avoid wiping each other out. And no, the desire to not die is not the result of liberal propaganda.


As I have said I recognize no such universal criteria at all.
In all likelyhood I would have been killed if I lived in Nazi Germany or subjected to hard labor. But that would not make nazi germany any better or worse.

I already said why it was worse by my criteria. If you have different criteria, then we won't agree. I said this from the beginning. why this still confuses you, I have no idea.


Which is exactly what I said in my previous post. And I will copy a sentence from it now just to clarify what I am arguing here.
"I do acknowlege that force was always used and will always be used to maintain order both in a society and in the world as a whole, however I resist the attempts to justify this use of force. In this discussion I'm basically questioning the moral right of a person or a country to enforce his/its view on another through force."

Where did I say anything about a "moral right"? An action is justified by the effects it has and by the context it is taken in. If human beings operate a certain way, then why would your morality be unrelated to the way they operate or the situations they inherit? How is it morally superior to simply keep your "purity" by presumably rising above all human interaction, even when by doing so you refuse to help prevent a genocide.

Your blathering about a "moral right" is meaningless and absolutist. I'm not arguing about the absolute "moral right" of Britain to impose all its wishes on everyone ever, I'm arguing that Western Europeans are better off by their own criteria as a result of the Nazis being defeated, so people who hold those criteria should not presume to be morally superior just because they or their grandparents refused to fight in a war which helped a lesser evil (by their criteria) defeat a greater evil (by their criteria). That was my point, and that was Orwell's point, and it was quite clear all along.


There is no dillema here. You do what you want to do, but don't try to justify your actions with some god-given moral right to do something.

Why do I have to do what you say? This sound like an imposition! Surely if I can do what I want,then I can also justify it however I want. Unless of course, you don't think I can do what I want, and are actually prepared to partake in some imposition of your own. But wait, as long as you don't say "good" or "bad", then that's ok, even if you act based on such presumptions.



Yes, you were imposing British worldview to every extent you possibly could. If it was really in the interest of the Western allies to permanently occupy West Germany, you would have, but it wasn't.

You saying this doesn't make it true. People aren't always as bad as you think they are.



Where did I say that? I demand a quote.
You keep declaring me wrong about something I never claimed to be true.

I'm not going back through 6 pages of your repetetive crap to find that quote, you must be joking. If you don't want to beleive me, I'm beyond caring, but anyone with a memory who reads this whole thread (and I pity them) will know what you said. That's good enough for me.



You alone cannot, but when a group of absolutists such as yourself get to lead one of the most powerful countries in the world then shit happens.

What, like defeating another group of more absolutist absolutists?Let's speel out your position here, because I doubt even you realsie it, seeing how you change arguments every post you make. But you've so far said that:

*Britain has no right to make Nazi Germany respect other people's freedoms, because Nazi Germany does not have to do anything, because there are no absolutes*

*I, d_s, have to respect other people's freedoms, ie in this case right to their opinion, simply because your moral compass says that I have to*

*That you have the right to say that "When absolutists who don't respect other people's opinions run a powerful country, shit happens (an absolutist judgement if ever I heard one)"*

*But yet, I am not allowed to say that a bunch of absolutists like the Nazis are "bad", because that makes me an absolutist, simply for wanting to defeat their absolutism, and temporarily aligning myself with a less absolutist power in order to do so*

So by your own absolutist criteria which you presume the right to order me to obey, it's better to be less absolutist than more absolutist, but yet, I have no right to say that a less aabsolutist power is "better" than a more absolutist power.

Totally incoherent Kami.


I will repeat that I am not arguing against the action, I'm arguing against your justification of this action. Please understand this fairly simple difference.

What's my justification for this action? And while we're at it; have you ever justified an action? And if so, how did you manage to do so without compromising your relativism?

[LongSilence]

Which are themselves political actions. To assume that politics only consists of what occurs under the aegis of liberal democratic institutions if what I like to call the 'Bernard Crick' fallacy - for he states much the same in A Defence of Politics. The fallacy does have a venerable past, what with the embryotic form of it present in Aristotle's comparative analysis of political constitutions and his very specific moral definition of what 'politics' is.

Of course. I was not saying that it was a very correct statement [if indeed it did mean as i imagine]. I was merely suggesting that it was perhaps considering current politics as more 'political' than those more brutal ones used by the Nazis. We must respect that there are many ways to practice the art of 'policing' people. However, its also quite obvious that when people use different methods it is much more difficult for them to 'work together' or even just work in a mutually understood fashion. This is why the co-existence of juxtaposed political ideologies is not really sustainable in the long term if there is much collision between the two.

[Ferrus]

This is why the co-existence of juxtaposed political ideologies is not really sustainable in the long term if there is much collision between the two.
Indeed, which is why most modern first world countries have two main parties. They usually form a broad consensus and attack each other over trivialities during times of stability, only (once every 30-50 years) showing real difference of opinion in a time of major crisis, which lasts usually less than 5 years.

[LongSilence]

Indeed, which is why most modern first world countries have two main parties. They usually form a broad consensus and attack each other over trivialities during times of stability, only (once every 30-50 years) showing real difference of opinion in a time of major crisis, which lasts usually less than 5 years.

Hey, its the liberal way of having controlled Civil War. Cost fewer death, but more cha-ching. Just the way the liberals like it.

[Ferrus]

Hey, its the liberal way of having controlled Civil War. Cost fewer death, but more cha-ching. Just the way the liberals like it.
And, for that matter, the conservatives too. For the essential institutional underpinnings of liberal democratic consensus are now defended by traditionalists (which is basically conservatism), and besides the economic liberal goal of free trade (nationally and supranationally) is now most vigorously asserted by conservatives. Much as conservative minded politicos in the Soviet Union defended the Leninist consensus.

[LongSilence]

For the sake of this thread I was kinda seeing the Conservatives as Liberals. After all, as you suggest they've probably changed their ideals [or at least broken and adjusted them] more than the liberals have over the last 50 years. I personally have a tricky time considering where I would place my own vote as more and more it seems to become about voting for a man and his cronies than an actual party with easily recognisable fixed beliefs. But I guess thats what happens the more liberal a nation becomes- the government is really there just to make sure everything runs smoothly rather than make any revolutionary changes.

[Ferrus]

For the sake of this thread I was kinda seeing the Conservatives as Liberals. After all, as you suggest they've probably changed their ideals [or at least broken and adjusted them] more than the liberals have over the last 50 years. I personally have a tricky time considering where I would place my own vote as more and more it seems to become about voting for a man and his cronies than an actual party with easily recognisable fixed beliefs. But I guess thats what happens the more liberal a nation becomes- the government is really there just to make sure everything runs smoothly rather than make any revolutionary changes.
That is what happens when politics becomes more and more a matter of personality, and when certain specific ideological assumptions become immutable. Everyone rushes for the centre ground, and all you have a vote for is the best 'manager', best being defined by the ideological hegemony of the age.

[Kami]

LongSilence

I maintain that the world would have be very different today for all if Britain had not helped defeat the Nazis.
And when did I argue otherwise? :)
"Different" is a term I like. "Better" or "worse" are the terms that I can't stand when they are being applied to more than just one person.

demagogic_schizoid

It already told you why. You have the memory of a gold-fish.
If you, or "It" already told me, then please repeat it, because I don't remember having read anything from you that would justify making judgements about how much the present day Americans love Britain compared to Germans, today or otherwise.

The only thing I can think of which would enable you to make such judgement would be a nationwide opinion poll or statistics, and if you have such data (which I doubt you do) - please present it.


And we didn't want to fight a war against them "just because their world-view was different from ours".
If you didn't want to do it, then why did you do it?
Either you went to war because you disagreed with the worldview of the German government, or because you were simply jealous of Germany becomming too powerful. Probably both reasons are true. But once again, neither of them serves as a moral justification of the action.


So people don't want peace and democracy. That looks like a statement about "people" to me.
Maybe it looks like that, but it isn't.
He obviously doesn't mean to say that every person in the world dislikes peace and democracy. If he did mean that, it would contradict his own statement further below about his Social Science teacher who believed in democracy and the "talking heads" in the TV who (apparently) believe in democracy.
More importantly though is the fact that unlike you, the article is not making judgements about peace and democracy being either good or bad for everyone.


But for the purposes of most conversations, when people say demcoracy, they are using something closer to my definition. You might want to learn this to prevent future misunderstandings.
Why not otherwise? Why don't you learn to understand democracy for what it truly is supposed to mean as opposed to what most people think of when using the word?
I can't refer to my understanding of democracy as anything else because it is democracy in the purest sense, but to prevent future misunderstanding, you could refer to your understanding of democracy as "liberal representative democracy" - that way we would have no disagreement about the definition. German election of the Nazis or Palestine's election of Hamas did not go against democracy itself, but it did go against liberal democracy. Can we agree on that?


a certain restriction of "democracy" is necessarry in order for it to operate.
That is ture of course, a certain restriction on democracy may be necessary to prevent people from being able to dismantle the said democracy. But on the other hand, if the whole point of democracy is giving the power to the people, shouldn't the people have the power to dismantle the democracy? Seems to me like they should, so it is not a contradiction.

Please consider the fact that the people in the all modern liberal representative democracies have the right to disenfranchise certain elements of the electorate (for example criminals, immigrants, etc). This might seem like an anti-democratic move, because it prevents the people living within a state to vote on the policies of the state, however it isn't an anti-democratic move, because it is done democratically. So applying this concept to a wider population, I have no choice but to come to conclusion that in a pure democracy, the electorate should have the right to disenfranchise anyone to the point of dismantling democracy altogether.


Nations respecting each others sovereignity is just like human beings respecting each others right to exist; not liberal philosophy
If it is not a liberal philosphy, then what in hell is it? A proven fact?
Why should I respect your life and why should you respect mine?
There is no rational expanation to this. Absolutely none.
If there is no expanation to something, then it is our belief, part of our philosophy, ideology, religion, or other kind set of beliefs - liberal or otherwise.


And no, the desire to not die is not the result of liberal propaganda.
Yes it is.

Mostly the liberal propaganda teaches people not to want to kill or die. EXCEPT when fighting against anything "evil" (the concept of evil is obviously set and defined by the same propaganda). So under normal conditions the people should be cowards, because cowardice turns out to be a virtue in a liberal society, but when fighting against the "evil" they would have to turn into fascists and start butchering and dying like crazy for any stupid cause they barely even understand.
That is how liberalism works.


How is it morally superior to simply keep your "purity" by presumably rising above all human interaction, even when by doing so you refuse to help prevent a genocide.
It isn't. For god's sake I'm not preaching isolationism here. It is NOT morally superior to be isolationist in the same way as it is NOT morally superior to be interventionist.
You cannot rationally justify either action, but you desperately keep trying to.


I'm not arguing about the absolute "moral right" of Britain to impose all its wishes on everyone ever
Your failure to realize what you are arguing doesn't mean that you are not arguing it.
By attempting to justify Britain's war against an aggressive genocidal regime in Germany, you are arguing for the absolute "moral right" of Britain to impose all its wishes on Germany and West Europe in particular, and everyone ever (as long as it suits your values of not causing too many casualties).
If you fail to see this I am sorry for you.


then I can also justify it however I want.
For yourself - yes. You can justify it for yourself whatever way you want. But you are attempting to justify this action for others - West Europeans, and people on this forum, including me. Oh sure you have the right to keep trying to do this, I don't deny you that, I'm just saying that your attempts to do this are anti-intellectual. It is un-intellectual to tell a person what he wants against his will.
"-I don't want this!"
"-Yes you do, you just don't realize it!"
http://www.readbooks.com.au/anuma/pofo%20pics/democracy_sig.jpg


I'm not going back through 6 pages of your repetetive crap to find that quote, you must be joking.
It is not any hard at all, and I will have no choice but to take your refusal to present the quote as an admission that you've tried to put words in my mouth, badly failed, and refused to admit your failure.


What, like defeating another group of more absolutist absolutists?
Yes.


it's better to be less absolutist than more absolutist
Quote? :)
I don't remember having said that less absolutism is better than more absolutism. However I did say that absolutism is not my thing and I dislike it and I also dislike people who argue from absolutist viewpoint.
I rationally questioned your absolutism by trying to get down to the reason WHY your are absolutist. You failed to present any.
The reason why I'm not absolutist is because there is no reason why any value would be considered universally better than any other.


What's my justification for this action?
As far as I understand your argument, your justification is that you brought freedoms and rights to people of West Germany, and you consider freedom and rights to be universally "good" values that eveyone must hold and that everyone must adhere to the Allied government's definition of what these freedoms and rights are and how they should be maintained.


And while we're at it; have you ever justified an action? And if so, how did you manage to do so without compromising your relativism?
In an intellectual discourse, no. Of course in regular life I'd sometimes say that something is better or worse, but if someone asks me to back it up, I'd just say - "this is better for me because I feel that way", I'd not try to actually justify it.

[LongSilence]

LongSilence

And when did I argue otherwise? :)
"Different" is a term I like. "Better" or "worse" are the terms that I can't stand when they are being applied to more than just one person.



Well, the argument started because you rolled your eyes at the idea of a Briton being proud of his grandfather going to war. And you also argue this-


If you didn't want to do it, then why did you do it?
Either you went to war because you disagreed with the worldview of the German government, or because you were simply jealous of Germany becomming too powerful. Probably both reasons are true. But once again, neither of them serves as a moral justification of the action.


Which is what I've been mainly arguing against again and again. It was a defensive measure. To allow the dominance of the Nazi regime would have severely undermined the liberal regime not only in Britain but those elsewhere in the world. The Britons are proud that they took an action that may well have been the one that led to their Empire disintegrating. As a culture they were well on the way to accepting that the days of military-maintained dominance over another nation were over.

Please, it was not a matter of "Oh god, we don't like the way they are doing things", it was: "Oh god, if we don't start paying attention and perhaps standing up for ourselves the way they are doing things is very likely to spread its influence and take over our own way". And this is true even if Hitler had largely left Britain alone. This is the moral justification for the action.

How about moving onto a new point? Let's discuss the view that dictatorship is a less 'advanced' ideology in that uses a far more feudal methodology. Or if 'advanced' is a too awkward word to agree upon- how about 'civilised'?

[Kami]

Well, the argument started because you rolled your eyes at the idea of a Briton being proud of his grandfather going to war.
Actually, IIRC it was D_S who rolled his eyes at a guy (Quaker) who was proud that his grandfather had not gone to war.
Correct me if I am wrong.


To allow the dominance of the Nazi regime would have severely undermined the liberal regime not only in Britain but those elsewhere in the world.
Well the whole argument I am having with D_S right now is about the superiority of the liberal regime over nazi. Since I maintain that it is not any better or worse, I don't see why it has to be defended.
Besides that, I also don't think that a powerful nazi government in East Europe would have been a significant threat to liberalism in Britain. I'm not even sure for how long that nazi government would last - after having achieved all of its stated objectives, I think it is rather likely that nazi germany itself would start becomming more liberal. But that is controversial and my opinion on that is not firm.


And this is true even if Hitler had largely left Britain alone.
Honestly - I don't know about that. Neither do you. This is alternative history we are talking about here. The way I see it, the chances of Hitler or any subsequent leader of Nazi Germany to be significantly concearned about liberalism in Britain are rather low. But I can't prove that, nor you can prove your point.


Let's discuss the view that dictatorship is a less 'advanced' ideology in that uses a far more feudal methodology. Or if 'advanced' is a too awkward word to agree upon- how about 'civilised'?
Both "advanced" and "civilized" are very vague terms that usually mean nothing more than being "good".

So before we can discuss that, I'd like to know how do YOU define being advanced or civilized?
Be as specific as you can please.

[LongSilence]

Actually, IIRC it was D_S who rolled his eyes at a guy (Quaker) who was proud that his grandfather had not gone to war.
Correct me if I am wrong.

I know that's what he said. But your implication started to get into how you would not see Britain's involvement as something that people should be proud about. But anyway, thats beside the point...


Well the whole argument I am having with D_S right now is about the superiority of the liberal regime over nazi. Since I maintain that it is not any better or worse, I don't see why it has to be defended.
Besides that, I also don't think that a powerful nazi government in East Europe would have been a significant threat to liberalism in Britain. I'm not even sure for how long that nazi government would last - after having achieved all of its stated objectives, I think it is rather likely that nazi germany itself would start becomming more liberal. But that is controversial and my opinion on that is not firm.


... I've tried at quite some length to actually get the discussion to be about the respective attitudes and tendencies of each ideologies towards certain political actions- Hitler geared his people for war and remarkably soon after his ascent to power started moving his troops into the neighbouring countries. Mussolini tried to do the same. They were, however, rather terrible at managing their economies for anything other than war because war was what filled their minds. The more Liberal a government becomes the more it concerns itself with how the economy works when not at war.

As for the Nazis becoming more liberal- why would they do that? It would be the start of losing their grip on the minds of the populace. Their regime was extreme enough that people wanting a more liberal way of life were likely to want someone else in power rather than wait ages for the Nazis to gradually progress towards some sort of more tolerant and relaxed exercise of power. Besides, I know you're unlikely to drop the idea but many, many people would argue that its naive to think that Hitler and his Nazi powerhouse would stop once they'd achieve their stated aims. For one, he'd be full of confidence and possessing vast resources with which to take on any who opposed him or did not acquiese to his wishes. France would certainly have been dealt with before long, especially given their unfriendly relations and aggression against Germany after WWI.



Honestly - I don't know about that. Neither do you. This is alternative history we are talking about here. The way I see it, the chances of Hitler or any subsequent leader of Nazi Germany to be significantly concearned about liberalism in Britain are rather low. But I can't prove that, nor you can prove your point.


See, this is where this discussion beginning to bore me. I know and very much respect the point you are making with DS and it is a point that should very much be brought up but you don't seem to be going with me into an analysis of the fundamental differences between the activities of a militaristic dictators and liberal democracies. I know you're trying to suggest that neither is 'better' or more 'justified' to rule but they ARE more than obviously different in how they act and have acted. The basis of fabricated histories can only be really made around our knowledge of our own histories. I don't see why an empire led by Hitler, who experienced very little effective internal opposition to his rule [the most threatening acts were probably the failed attempts on his life] would begin to collapse. Also, you admit that all ideologies seek to spread their influences almost interminably, right? Why would Hitler, who displayed in his life only a desire to expand his 'Reich', be any different? Surely, if anything, he'd be more likely to continue employing his violent methods?

And please, I've tried to discuss how ideologies will always seek to undermine their competitors lest too many of their followers begin to feel drawn to seek the other side for themselves. Fascists, like Medieval nations use military conquest; Liberals use economic 'persuasion'. It's as simple as that.


So before we can discuss that, I'd like to know how do YOU define being advanced or civilized?
Be as specific as you can please.

'Civilised': the basis of civilisation is the construction of cities and their subsequent cultures. City cultures, when observed as single entities, are largely constructive rather than destructive. They bring people and ideas together and set up a non-violent code of conduct based around fiscal rather than violent communication. Civilised cities, when observed as single entities, tend towards breaking down of prejudice for the sake of more growth.

Warring ideologies naturally become more liberal when they begin to build cities. The "slaves" taken in conquest gradually become more and more accepted and absorbed. Thus when the Weimar democracy turned to Fascism it was 'reverting' to less a civilised way of doing things.

[Kami]

They were, however, rather terrible at managing their economies for anything other than war because war was what filled their minds. The more Liberal a government becomes the more it concerns itself with how the economy works when not at war.
They were terrible at managing peace economies? Why would you think that? If you have some convincing source about that, please present it. From what I know and heard, it was Hitler who managed to pull Germany out of depression before conquering any territories, and Mussolini was rather good at "making trains run on time". Both economies expanded at a rather fast pace during the interwar years, although of course far slower than that of USSR which grew by some 50% per year, but still better than their liberal counterparts - Britain and USA..


As for the Nazis becoming more liberal- why would they do that?
Because the nazi movement had lost its point of existance? Unlike fascism or liberalism, Nazism is not really a philosophy or ideology. It was simply a platform of rather specific ideas that Germany had to accomplish to become Hitler's dream-land. After having accomplished these ideas, what would be the point of the Nazi movement? The point of the strong leadership and one-man dictatorhip was intended for the revival of Germany. After this has been accomplished, is there any more point to such hardline leadership? I am not saying that Germany would immidiately become a democracy-land fully respectful of human rights, but the whole point of repressions would be pretty much lost - Communists have been neutralized, Jews have been gotten rid of. Of course there would still be national conservatism - prejudice against immigrants, protectionism, less rights for foreign nationals - but hey, many liberal countries had such problems at some point (half of US was in slavery up to mid 1800s).
Hitler drew a few parallels with USA in Mein Kampf, he pointed out how US expanded westward and eliminated the natives as a path to success. He apparently wanted Germany to pull off the same thing in East Europe, then, perhaps, become like the US.


France would certainly have been dealt with before long, especially given their unfriendly relations and aggression against Germany after WWI.
Alsace-Lorraine was all Hitler wanted from France, as he proved in 1940. The worst what he could demand from the West could be the return of German colonies in Africa and perhaps some kind of re-partitioning of Africa.


fundamental differences between the activities of a militaristic dictators and liberal democracies.
Sure, in general, a dictatorial empire led by an over-emotional person like Hitler is more likely to go to war than a liberal country led by some stone-face like Putin surrounded with oligarchs and corporate leaders. You are right about that. Yet neither one of them has to go to war or stay at peace just because of its system of governemnt.


Why would Hitler, who displayed in his life only a desire to expand his 'Reich', be any different?
I only see his display of desire to conquer certain territories and settle certain historical "injustices". I don't see it as an unconditional desire to expand forever. Are you one of those guys who believe Hitler wanted to conquer the world? That I find to be a rather primitive view.


Fascists, like Medieval nations use military conquest; Liberals use economic 'persuasion'.
Use... for what? First of all, let's establish that we are talking about Hitler's Nazism here, not philosophical fascism. Second of all, what makes you think that nazis have to use military conquest or that liberals have to use economic persuasion for any of their goals?
Liberal countries go to war when they cannot achieve their objectives economically. How is that different from Nazis? The goals of the NSDAP were simply not the kind of goals which could be settled economically or democratically, that is all. How do you imagine Germany using economic persuation to make Poland give up Danzig? The territory was taken from Germany through war, the only way it could be returned is through war.


the basis of civilisation is the construction of cities and their subsequent cultures.
I think that both dictatorships and democracies have equal chance of being devoted to construction of cities and their subsequent cultures. Some over-romantic elements of the fascist and nazi movements showed tendency to dislike the industrial culture in general and favor the return to agricultural past. Both Hitler and Mussolini seem to have cracked down on those elements pretty harshly. They both were very pro-industrial and pro-modern. The only person crazy enough to try the de-industrialization turned out to be Pol Pot.


Civilised cities, when observed as single entities, tend towards breaking down of prejudice for the sake of more growth.
Interestingly though, under capitalism, war is sometimes good for the economy. If economic growth is our God whom we worship unconditionally, then war should sometimes be in our interest - it generates markets, increases demand, creates jobs, not to mention - raises patriotism and loyalty (which is very good for economy too).
Slavery can be good for economy too. The Soviet labour camp workers generated very high industrial growth for the Soviet Union in 1930s and 1940s, which probably enabled the Soviet the victory in World War 2. The Soviet cities grew very very rapidly during this time period and a lot of countryside-to-city migration took place.
The slave workers in the SS occupied territories also did very well working for Volkswagen and Coca Cola.


Thus when the Weimar democracy turned to Fascism it was 'reverting' to less a civilised way of doing things.
Ahem, Nazis did not favor destruction of cities in general - they only favored destruction of certain cities (e.g. Leningrad, eventually Warsaw). As you probably know Hitler and Speer had many plans for expansion and development of German culture and German cities - especially Berlin.

[demagogic_schizoid]

If you, or "It" already told me, then please repeat it, because I don't remember having read anything from you that would justify making judgements about how much the present day Americans love Britain compared to Germans, today or otherwise.

The only thing I can think of which would enable you to make such judgement would be a nationwide opinion poll or statistics, and if you have such data (which I doubt you do) - please present it.

I don't believe that's necessary, it's plainly obvious why I would say that Germans would have more of a grudge gainst Britain in the 1930's than Americans have today.



If you didn't want to do it, then why did you do it?Either you went to war because you disagreed with the worldview of the German government, or because you were simply jealous of Germany becomming too powerful. Probably both reasons are true. But once again, neither of them serves as a moral justification of the action.

I didn't say we didn't want to do it, I said we didn't want to do it for the reason you described any more than they didn't want to do it for the reason you said they didn't want to do it (but still did anyway).




Maybe it looks like that, but it isn't.
He obviously doesn't mean to say that every person in the world dislikes peace and democracy.

And I never said that every person in the world likes peace and democracy. You're putting words in my mouth and you're allowing him to get away with more generalisations and assertions about human nature than you will allow me to get away with, simply because he backs up your prejudices.


If he did mean that, it would contradict his own statement further below about his Social Science teacher who believed in democracy and the "talking heads" in the TV who (apparently) believe in democracy.
More importantly though is the fact that unlike you, the article is not making judgements about peace and democracy being either good or bad for everyone.

He's making judgements about trying to impose peace and democracy being bad. He's entering the political debate to argue in favour of one course of action and against another, ie arguing that a government or society should carry out and therefore necessarilly impose the policies he proposes, because he believes that doing so will acheive certain goals which he deems desirable. So if he's allowed to do this, then why can't I?



Why not otherwise? Why don't you learn to understand democracy for what it truly is supposed to mean as opposed to what most people think of when using the word?
I can't refer to my understanding of democracy as anything else because it is democracy in the purest sense, but to prevent future misunderstanding, you could refer to your understanding of democracy as "liberal representative democracy"

Because I can't be arsed to type all that out. I don't stick to a rigid definition of democracy, I generally understand that the person I'm talking to will be referring to some kind of democratic compromise which can function. Obvious true democracy is every citizen voting on each issue. So you yourself accept a different definition of "democracy" to the real one. In short, you keep holding me to ridiculously strict standards which you don't hold yourself or anyone else to. Pedantically speaking, "democracy" is just an abstract concept anyway, and what it means is onyl what people think it means. However, I think we can agree that modern Germany is more "democratic" in the sense that it respects freedom of speech for more people, censors less opinions, has stronger democratic institutions, etc., than Nazi Germany, which was a dictatorship, however it came to power. Can we agree on that?


- that way we would have no disagreement about the definition. German election of the Nazis or Palestine's election of Hamas did not go against democracy itself, but it did go against liberal democracy. Can we agree on that?

Yes, but I think it went against more than liberal demcoracy, it went against the right of entire sections of society to even exist; a right which had been recognised long before liberalism existed.


That is ture of course, a certain restriction on democracy may be necessary to prevent people from being able to dismantle the said democracy. But on the other hand, if the whole point of democracy is giving the power to the people, shouldn't the people have the power to dismantle the democracy? Seems to me like they should, so it is not a contradiction.

Of course it's a contradiction, because they deny their successors the chance to have democratic rights, they deny democratic rights to anyone who goes against the majority. By your definition "democracy" may mean "mob rule", but this is by no means the "pure" definition or the "real" definition. Perhaps there is no "pure" or "real" definition and democracy only means what people want it to mean. But either way, there is no "absolute" democracy and there are always contradictions inherent in the maintenence of a democracy, and maybe one day you will feel like bringing some ideas of your own to the table to think about 1.) what your criteria for a succesful society are, 2.) the role of democracy in that society and 3.) the compromises needed in order that some of your ideals can be sacrificed in order to find a workable compromise to sustainably acheive as many of your aims as possible without sacrificing practicability to idealism. Because it seems to me that a truly intelligent person would do this rather than point out contradictions which, with respect, most people knew existed by the time they were teenagers.


Please consider the fact that the people in the all modern liberal representative democracies have the right to disenfranchise certain elements of the electorate (for example criminals, immigrants, etc). This might seem like an anti-democratic move, because it prevents the people living within a state to vote on the policies of the state, however it isn't an anti-democratic move, because it is done democratically. So applying this concept to a wider population, I have no choice but to come to conclusion that in a pure democracy, the electorate should have the right to disenfranchise anyone to the point of dismantling democracy altogether.

There is no pure demcoracy, as your example has just shown. And you've made value judgements against absolutism ont his thread, so why you can't make a value judgement against the example you've just given is beyond me.


If it is not a liberal philosphy, then what in hell is it? A proven fact?

Ever heard of the 10 Commandments? Was the Old Testament liberal now?


Why should I respect your life and why should you respect mine?
There is no rational expanation to this. Absolutely none.

I think there is probably an evolutionary explanation, which you should be bale to work out if you think about it just a little rather than demanding that I spoon-feed you everything.



Mostly the liberal propaganda teaches people not to want to kill or die. EXCEPT when fighting against anything "evil" (the concept of evil is obviously set and defined by the same propaganda). So under normal conditions the people should be cowards, because cowardice turns out to be a virtue in a liberal society, but when fighting against the "evil" they would have to turn into fascists and start butchering and dying like crazy for any stupid cause they barely even understand.
That is how liberalism works.

Wow, that looks very judgemental kami. Why not just come out and admit your absolutism on certain issues, the "aloof and detached" act is wearing thin....I can tell you obviously do realise that butchering people is wrong otherwise you wouldn't get so heat up about it...but yet you can't say it...because your Ti is overpowering your intuition and ironically making you less intuititive on this count than the average person.



It isn't. For god's sake I'm not preaching isolationism here. It is NOT morally superior to be isolationist in the same way as it is NOT morally superior to be interventionist.
You cannot rationally justify either action, but you desperately keep trying to.

I'm not depserately trying to, I've given you my reasons, yet you keep coming back for more, as if it bruises your ego too much for me not to admit you are right. Well I don't think you're right. I've given you my justification. Take it or leave it.



Your failure to realize what you are arguing doesn't mean that you are not arguing it.
By attempting to justify Britain's war against an aggressive genocidal regime in Germany, you are arguing for the absolute "moral right" of Britain to impose all its wishes on Germany and West Europe in particular, and everyone ever (as long as it suits your values of not causing too many casualties).
If you fail to see this I am sorry for you.


I'm not arguing this, especially not the highlighted bit. I'm defending a specific action when measured against certain criteria; criteria which I have said you are free to refuse to accept without any moral outrage on my part. Nowehere have I made an "absolute moral judgement". I've measured the effects of the war against the morally absolutist criteria of Quakers and the vast majority of peace-loving people the world over, and I've shown why I think that by their own criteria they should have supported the war effort. Nowehere have I made a moral judgement on you for not sharing my criteria of what is good and bad. Maybe that disappoints you, because perhaps you'd find it quite a boost to your ego to be reprimanded by some irrational moralist who can't bear your ability to question his cosy little world. However, that isn't what's happened here, so go join some conservative christian forum if that's what you want. All that's happened here is that you've demonstrated inchorence, and an INTP has called you on it, so you've then made up a strawman.


For yourself - yes. You can justify it for yourself whatever way you want. But you are attempting to justify this action for others - West Europeans, and people on this forum, including me. Oh sure you have the right to keep trying to do this, I don't deny you that, I'm just saying that your attempts to do this are anti-intellectual. It is un-intellectual to tell a person what he wants against his will.
"-I don't want this!"
"-Yes you do, you just don't realize it!"

It looks like this is what you're doing:
"-I don't want the British to not liberate us"
"-Yes you do, you just don't realise it! you will expose d_s's hypocrisy even if it means you have to live in a state of constant poverty, war and slavery"

And tell me something, if I was going round the world imposing my views on everyone, and havingwhat you could clearly see were negative effects, and then someone tried to stop me, and that person would, if they defeated me, return all the places I'd conquered to a situation where they were having less imposition placed on them than I was placing on them, and that other person could save lives by defeating me, wouldn't you support their effort to defeat me, and wouldn't you think that your support for them was justified on some grounds?



It is not any hard at all, and I will have no choice but to take your refusal to present the quote as an admission that you've tried to put words in my mouth, badly failed, and refused to admit your failure.

Your Post, Post#50, Page 5:

"The point is painfully obvious: people are different and they don't want the stuff that you want AT ALL."



Quote? :)
I don't remember having said that less absolutism is better than more absolutism. However I did say that absolutism is not my thing and I dislike it and I also dislike people who argue from absolutist viewpoint.

You said "shit happens" when absolutists run a country. You also said I have to respect people's right to an opinion. If you're calling it shit, then that's a value judgement, and you're saying it would be better for less absolutist people to be running the country. If you're saying I have to do it, then that's a value judgement, and you're saying it's better for me to respect their opinion than for me to not respect it. So there you have it; two clear value judgements on your part that less absolutism is better than more absolutism. Seeing as the Allies were less absolutist than the Nazis, therefore, you should retrospectively endorse the Allies defeat of the Nazis.



The reason why I'm not absolutist is because there is no reason why any value would be considered universally better than any other.

This is an absolutist statement. If no belief is universally better than another, then surely your belief above is no universally better than the belief that "there is every reason why some values would be considered universally better than others"...so therefore absolutism is as valid as relativism...your statement defeats itself. Perhaps you shouldn't make such sweeping, absolutist statements in the first place. Like it or not, I have been much mroe relativist than you on this thread. You've tried to give some "final meaning" to human actions (ie imposing an opinion), as fundamentally unjustifiable, whereas I recognsise why certain actions are justified by certain ciircumstances. This makes you more absolutist than me.


As far as I understand your argument, your justification is that you brought freedoms and rights to people of West Germany, and you consider freedom and rights to be universally "good" values that eveyone must hold and that everyone must adhere to the Allied government's definition of what these freedoms and rights are and how they should be maintained.

I suggest you take comprehension classes then.



In an intellectual discourse, no. Of course in regular life I'd sometimes say that something is better or worse, but if someone asks me to back it up, I'd just say - "this is better for me because I feel that way", I'd not try to actually justify it

So you think no action is ever at all justifiable, in other words? For example, if I see a kid crossing the road, it's no less justifiable for me to push him under the car, than to help him across? Neither action can have less justification than the other? I suggest you think abut the relative merits of courses of action rather than trying to view justification as an absolute process, whereby an action is either totally justified or impossible to justify on any grounds.

[Kami]

it's plainly obvious
Oh yeah it's plainfully obvious that I am right and you are wrong, then what is the point of arguing? If you want to convince me of something, please present your data.


He's making judgements about trying to impose peace and democracy being bad.
Bullshit. You're plainly wrong. Point me to a sentence where he states that trying to impose peace and democracy is bad. He's explaining his observations and presenting certain facts. In this particualr excerpt, he never says what a government should or should not do.
Perhaps he gives you the "general impression" that trying to impose values is bad. That is a viewpoint which you don't have to accept if you don't want. Besides, I'm not even sure if he is or isn't actually in favor of imposing values.


And I never said that every person in the world likes peace and democracy.
Good. Then what makes you think you have the right to impose on them peace and democracy?


Because I can't be arsed to type all that out.
That's not an excuse. Use Ctrl+c -> Ctrl+v if you are really lazy.


I think we can agree that modern Germany is more "democratic" in the sense that it respects freedom of speech for more people, censors less opinions, has stronger democratic institutions, etc., than Nazi Germany, which was a dictatorship, however it came to power. Can we agree on that?
Yes, certainly, but that was not what the argument was about. My argument was that if the Germans voted to dismantle democracy, then their action was democratic.


By your definition "democracy" may mean "mob rule", but this is by no means the "pure" definition or the "real" definition. Perhaps there is no "pure" or "real" definition and democracy only means what people want it to mean.
I could agree with that, but then we would also have to describe Soviet government as democratic (which it always claimed to be), and that would be problematic.


And you've made value judgements against absolutism ont his thread, so why you can't make a value judgement against the example you've just given is beyond me.
Please elaborate on this, what exactly are you trying to say?


Ever heard of the 10 Commandments? Was the Old Testament liberal now?
Perhaps not liberal, but it is part of a religion that eventually led to liberalism. Why would I, or any other person obey what it says in the 10 commandments, unless we are religious?
And even if I was religious, as you well know religions get interpreted in a variety of different ways. Islam also says "you shall not kill", yet a shitload of people kill in the name of Islam. I'm not sure if we can go ahead and tell them they are being wrong in their interpretation of Islam and therefore bad.


think there is probably an evolutionary explanation
First of all, human evolution would not stop if you killed me, or if Germany destroyed Poland.
Second of all, Nazis believed that the subhumans were backward - they were obsticles to human evolution, fit for elimination.
Third of all, human evolution is not "universally good" just because it sounds nice to you.


Wow, that looks very judgemental kami.
No it doesn't. Stop this bulshit nitpicking already. I define what is a stupid cause for myself, not for you. If you don't agree that the cause is stupid, that's just fine with me.


I've given you my justification.
You've given me NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. You can try to convince yourself otherwise if you wish, but it would be intellectually dishonest for you to do so.

All you "reasons" revolve around something being bad and something being good, and you always fail to explain your judgement.


Nowehere have I made a moral judgement on you for not sharing my criteria of what is good and bad.
You are going back on your own words. You have repeatedly stated that British-American liberation of west europe was good for those liberated. Don't try to deny this.


It looks like this is what you're doing:
Nope.


wouldn't you support their effort to defeat me, and wouldn't you think that your support for them was justified on some grounds?
Yes I would suport the effort because it happens to match my views. Personally I do support the British entry into the war. I don't support your attempt to justify it for British or French or Germans.


The point is painfully obvious: people are different and they don't want the stuff that you want AT ALL."

You said most people don't want what I want.
Do you not see the fucking difference?
You try to "catch" me prove me wrong on something I haven't ever said. Most people in Europe probably do want something similar to what you want, but people are different and they don't have to have the same values as you, at all. That was my point. I did not make a statement about most people wanting something today or yesterday.


You said "shit happens" when absolutists run a country.
It is silly nitpicking on your part. "shit happens" was nothing more than a phrase to express that when people like you lead a country they make a difference. As I said, I support UK declaration of war, so "shit happens" applied to that.


You also said I have to respect people's right to an opinion.
All right I will repharse myself: I'd prefer if you repsected it. You don't have to.


You've tried to give some "final meaning" to human actions (ie imposing an opinion), as fundamentally unjustifiable, whereas I recognsise why certain actions are justified by certain ciircumstances. This makes you more absolutist than me.
I honestly don't see how this makes me any absolutist.
Maybe we don't understand this word in the same way?
Yes, in effect I am saying that human actions are unjustifiable (for anyone but themselves). How does this make me absolutist?
Absolutist is a person who holds a firm belief that has no scientific proof.
The belief that human actions are unjustifiable has a proof - the lack of justification.


I suggest you take comprehension classes then.
May I suggest to you the same exact thing? In an argument there are bound to be misunderstandings, this is self-evident. You have shown your inability to understand my argument concearning many issues and I'm not sure if you understand me now. So how about trying to explain yourself better rather than throwing empty statements at me such as this?


For example, if I see a kid crossing the road, it's no less justifiable for me to push him under the car, than to help him across?
No.
And I don't know why you seem so surprised or amazed by this. To use your own terminology - you seem like a tenth grader in philosophy class. For me this is very basic material, something that we could as well leave and go to more interesting stuff such as what LongSilence tries to discuss.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Oh yeah it's plainfully obvious that I am right and you are wrong, then what is the point of arguing? If you want to convince me of something, please present your data.

I don't want to convince you. I just think you're stupid if you can't see why Germans in 1930 would less positive towards Brits than Americans are in 2007.


Bullshit. You're plainly wrong. Point me to a sentence where he states that trying to impose peace and democracy is bad. He's explaining his observations and presenting certain facts. In this particualr excerpt, he never says what a government should or should not do.
Perhaps he gives you the "general impression" that trying to impose values is bad. That is a viewpoint which you don't have to accept if you don't want.

His article is an attack on American politics and on trying to impose peace and demcoracy. Clearly he judges these things to be bad, and wants these policies changed. Of course I don't *have* to accept his viewpoint. You don't *have* to accept mine. But if he wants his views to be acted on, then he wants them to be imposed despite some opposition, just like anyone. This makes him no more or less "absolutist" than me.

And I didn't see many "facts" in that rant btw. none of the polls or scientific analysis you demand from me.



Good. Then what makes you think you have the right to impose on them peace and democracy?

Because the moment they start imposing their views on others is the moment they lose the right to not have others views imposed on them. I support a certain maount of imposition if a certain amount of imposition of views prevents a more absolutist, less tolerant, less beneficial in terms of security (which humans want for themselves/their families, even if not for others), prosperity (likewise) and liberty (ditto - if you dispute that any human doesn't want liberty for himself, then try telling him he has to do the exact opposite of what he wants to do and see how he reacts - all humans want the liberty to do what they want, even if they don't express it in "liberal" terms or support it for others). That's my justification. Nowehere did I ever say I have an "absolute moral right", such a line of argument wouldn't occur to me as I'm not even interested in that issue - I simply explained my reasoning why a certain action is justified by my criteria. You don't have to agree, as I said all along. but at least be honest enough to admit that in pactice, you too support imposing your views regardless of some opposition.


That's not an excuse. Use Ctrl+c -> Ctrl+v if you are really lazy.

I'm not that lazy, just used to talking to people who use the sophisticated definiton, not the crude one.


Yes, certainly, but that was not what the argument was about. My argument was that if the Germans voted to dismantle democracy, then their action was democratic.

You can argue it either way.


Perhaps not liberal, but it is part of a religion that eventually led to liberalism.

Similair values exist in other religions which didn't lead to liberalism and in other societies which aren't liberal. So you're wrong in saying that "murder is wrong" is a liberal value. No. It's a fundamental human value. Name meone society which ever existed which didn't believe that "murder", by their own definition of murder (ie, any killing not justified by "special circumstances") was wrong. I've studies anthropology, and have been told by lecturers and read material which has lead me to believe that no such society ever existed.


Why would I, or any other person obey what it says in the 10 commandments, unless we are religious?

Again, you totally misrepresent me. I didn't say you should obey the Ten Commandments. I just said that certain value which you paint as liberal, are not the result of liberalism at all.



First of all, human evolution would not stop if you killed me, or if Germany destroyed Poland.

Obviously, but humans exhibit behaviour tied to evolutionary necessity regardless of the fact that any one individual going against this would not affect evolution. You simply said that there's no rational reason why murder should be wrong. I'm saying that there is a rational reason, and it's evolutionary, much like there is a rational reason for reproduction, regardless of the fact that me not reproducing wouldn't make the human race die out. Effectively, you're arguing that humans natural revulsion to "murder" can't be rationally explained, but it can.


Second of all, Nazis believed that the subhumans were backward - they were obsticles to human evolution, fit for elimination.

This is widely known. What's your point?


Third of all, human evolution is not "universally good" just because it sounds nice to you.

I didn't say it was universally good, I simply said it's a rational explanation.

Also, if you want to stay alive, as most people do, then it makes sense to have laws in place keeping society safer, and laws to ensure people not killing each other, and on a larger scale country's not going to war, serves this purpose. Again, another rational explanation, which doesn't have to be "universally good or bad" (anther huge kami strawman), simply an explanation for something you apparently considered inexplicable.



No it doesn't. Stop this bulshit nitpicking already. I define what is a stupid cause for myself, not for you. If you don't agree that the cause is stupid, that's just fine with me.

So if I give an opinion, it's implicitly understood that I'm defining it for everyone and I'm a dictatorial imposer, but if you give one, it's implicitly understood that you're only defining it for yourself?

All that's happened here is you gave your opinion on what is "shit" and what I "have to do", and I gave my opinion on what is "shit" and what people "have to do", but somehow it's considered awful when I do it, but ok when you do it.

You are no less absolutist than me.


You've given me NOTHING. Absolutely nothing. You can try to convince yourself otherwise if you wish, but it would be intellectually dishonest for you to do so.

I've given you my reasons for my opinion, much more than you've given me or the author of that article gave for his. How can I be intellectually dishonest when I'm simply telling you why I supported an action based on my own criteria? Am I lying about my reasons for supporting the action? Or have you somehow proven my criteria or my reasoning of how the actions served my criteria, to be wrong? I must have missed that part.


All you "reasons" revolve around something being bad and something being good, and you always fail to explain your judgement.

All opinions revolve around something being bad or good. Your argument here rests on the assumption that imposing a view is bad. You haven't explained why this is so. I wouldn't expect you to, as such things can't be explained, they're just feelings. However, you can explain how your support for actions serves your critieria and why people with the certain criteria would be wise to support certain actions as the best ways of acheiving their criteria. I don't understand what exactly the problem here is.



You are going back on your own words. You have repeatedly stated that British-American liberation of west europe was good for those liberated. Don't try to deny this.

I stated why it was good by their criteria and by mine, not that it was "good" in some timeless sense.



Yes I would suport the effort because it happens to match my views. Personally I do support the British entry into the war. I don't support your attempt to justify it for British or French or Germans.

So you would support it, but you would never justify your support for the action? Perhaps you need to invest in a dictionary:


Definition:

1. make something seem reasonable: to serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for something ( often passive )


2. give somebody reason: to give somebody an acceptable reason for taking a particular action ( often passive )


3. explain something: to give a reason or explanation why something was done


Therefore, a "justification" is subjective, and justifying somehting is not the same as proving it "right" in absolute terms. For you to refuse to justify your support for an action is anti-intellectual, as it is tantamount to syaing that no action can be explained to any extent, rather it's simply something you support because it's "your opinion", one which apparently can't be deconstructed or explained; in other words, justified.



Do you not see the fucking difference?
You try to "catch" me prove me wrong on something I haven't ever said. Most people in Europe probably do want something similar to what you want, but people are different and they don't have to have the same values as you, at all. That was my point. I did not make a statement about most people wanting something today or yesterday.

You did, you said "people don't want what you want AT ALL", which is clearly different to "not all people want what you want".



It is silly nitpicking on your part. "shit happens" was nothing more than a phrase to express that when people like you lead a country they make a difference. As I said, I support UK declaration of war, so "shit happens" applied to that.

Clearly you were saying it's undesirable for a bunch of powerful absolutists (like me, you siad, which is hilarious) to be in control of a country. If you didn't think it was undesirable, you wouldn't have called it "shit", because this phrase clearly differentiates from other occurences which are not "shit".


All right I will repharse myself: I'd prefer if you repsected it. You don't have to.

Why would you prefer it? Because you think it's better for me to do so, presumably. Therefore you've made a value judgement, otherwise you wouldn't "prefer" one course of action over another. But apparently only you are allowed to make value judgements.



I honestly don't see how this makes me any absolutist.
Maybe we don't understand this word in the same way?
Yes, in effect I am saying that human actions are unjustifiable (for anyone but themselves). How does this make me absolutist?

Because it's:


a firm belief that has no scientific proof.



The belief that human actions are unjustifiable has a proof - the lack of justification.

Except that people do provide justifications. If you refuse to accept them that's your own opinion, not a scientifically proven fact.


May I suggest to you the same exact thing? In an argument there are bound to be misunderstandings, this is self-evident. You have proven not to understand my agrument concearning many issues and I'm not sure if you understand it now. So how about trying to explain yourself better rather than throwing empty statements at me such as this?

Why do certain people always assume that to reject an argument = to not understand it.


No.
And I don't know why you seem so surprised or amazed by this.

You prejudged me as amazed before I even read your reply? wow, now I am amazed.


To use your own terminology - you seem like a tenth grader in philosophy class. For me this is very basic material, something that we could as well leave and go to more interesting stuff such as what LongSilence tries to discuss.

"Tries to discuss", as if I'm stopping him...nice. It clearly isn't basic material for you, as you haven't even grasped the meaning of the word "justify". The two courses of action I described are not really equally justifiable if we are to judge them against nay conventional criteria (and since morality is the result of human societies and minds, to take morality outof the context of the fundamental desires of human beings and the fundamental necessities of human societies in order to serve those desires is not very rational, in my opinion. In other words, yes, we can say that in a vacuum, life is "better" than death to the human mind, which is the mind which produced morality in order to serve it's evolutionary porgramming).

Or let me put it another way - no human being wants to be killed "prematurely". A suicidal human being wants to die when he chooses to die. Someone with euthanasia wants to be killed when they decree it. Someone going to war wants to die in a certain context which they chose. And the rest of us don't want to die before natural causes decree it. In any case, no-one wants to have their life cut short by an incident out of their own hands, because generally we want to stay alive, except for in the remarkable exceptions I gave, which still obey the general rule highlighted. So in an incident where we have no information except "At a random moment in time, Person A is crossing Road. Person B is behind him. Person B can push him under a car or not push him under a car", then the human being will reason "person A might be me, so person B shouldn't do it" (if the person is suicidal we have to ask them whether they would genuinely like power over their own life to be removed - which they wouldn't because clearly they chose to live until now and may choose to die at some other point, either way their ability to acheive their desire depends on having power over their own situationa s much as possiblle). So therefore, rationally, the human can reason "In case person A is me, I don't want my life ended prematurely without my consent, so person B should not do this". I'd say that all morality is an extensionof this "it could be me" line of thought, and therefore we cand efinitely rationally explain morality by exmaining fundamental human desires for themselves. So yes, the moral judgement that "not pushing person A under the car" is "right" is one I've just explained, because morality is a human invention and shoul serve humans needs. Can you equally rationally justify pushing him under the car, without adding nay "extra" circumstances like "he might have done this, he might be that, etc."? I'd like to see your justification.

I mean, simply, that in a vacuum, not killing is better than killing, because "it could be me", and therefore morality should help keep us alive, and more sophisticated forms of morality are just extensions of this.

And no, I never took a philosophy class, I'm simply a functioning human being. I don't think everything can be "taught", some things we can just understand intuitively.

So, in summary, Kami has learnt the meaning of justification, he's learnt that all actions can be justified by someone, and he's learnt that that not all justifications are equal. Progress :)

[Kami]

I don't want to convince you.
All right then.
You were wrong.


Clearly he judges these things to be bad, and wants these policies changed.
I read more of him than just this excerpt, I don't think he is in favor of changing that much of US policies. And this is besides the point anyway.


But if he wants his views to be acted on, then he wants them to be imposed despite some opposition, just like anyone. This makes him no more or less "absolutist" than me.
No. He recognizes that his views are not absolute and if he wants his views enforced anyway that is fine. You don't seem to recognize the same thing.


is the moment they lose the right to not have others views imposed on them.
Again you are talking about some "right" that they had in the first place. Germany had no "right" to sovereignty. Britain had no "right" to fight Germany. This are all actions that have no moral universal "right" backing them up, only a subjective justification which they themselves made up.


I simply explained my reasoning why a certain action is justified by my criteria.
If this was really so, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. But you evidently tried to justify it for others and you still appear to be trying to. "They want liberty", "they want this", "they want that". You don't know what they want, and whatever it is they want can be easily manipulated by whoever is in control.
If you acknowlege that it is only your personal critiria - fine.


Similair values exist in other religions which didn't lead to liberalism and in other societies which aren't liberal. So you're wrong in saying that "murder is wrong" is a liberal value. No. It's a fundamental human value.
Your logic is incorrect.
"Similair values exist in other religions which didn't lead to liberalism and in other societies which aren't liberal." - that is true
"It's a fundamental human value." - that is false and it doesn't follow from the above sentence.


Name meone society which ever existed which didn't believe that "murder", by their own definition of murder (ie, any killing not justified by "special circumstances") was wrong.
This question is rather pointless. In essense you are asking me: "name a society in which a thing that is thought of as being bad is not considered to be bad".
What the hell is this supposed to mean? The whole point is that these "special circumstances" can be defined in any possible way: jews, witches, criminals, infidels, foreigners, etc.
And even if 100% of human population considered murder to be bad it wouldn't make it bad at all.


I just said that certain value which you paint as liberal, are not the result of liberalism at all.
All right, then it is part of some other philosophy/religion/way_of_life that you want/wanted to justify imposing on others.


I'm saying that there is a rational reason
There is definately a rational reason why murder is unacceptable in society unless cirtain circumstances, but it is not a rational explanation why murder is wrong.


This is widely known. What's your point?
The point is that Nazis did not go against evolution at all. You can't describe British action as being in defence of evolution.


if you want to stay alive, as most people do, then it makes sense to have laws in place keeping society safer, and laws to ensure people not killing each other, and on a larger scale country's not going to war, serves this purpose.
By Nazi definition, German people would only stay alive and be happy if the jewish-communist infiltration was gotten rid of and part of Europe was conquered. It was not anti-evolutionary or anything of that sort.


it's implicitly understood that I'm defining it for everyone and I'm a dictatorial imposer
It's not "implicitly understood", you keep stating it. You insist that others (West Europeans) have same values as you when they don't have to.


All that's happened here is you gave your opinion on what is "shit" and what I "have to do", and I gave my opinion on what is "shit" and what people "have to do", but somehow it's considered awful when I do it, but ok when you do it.

You are no less absolutist than me.
For fucks sake man, what in hell are you talking about?


Your argument here rests on the assumption that imposing a view is bad.
FUCKING FAIL.
How many times have I said already that I am not telling you that imposing a view is bad. How come you fail to read this so many times?

Are you reading what I write at all?
Hello.
Please read my posts. I did not say that imposing a view is bad. I've said the contrary numerous times and I'm tired of repeating it.


I stated why it was good by their criteria and by mine, not that it was "good" in some timeless sense.
Their critiria meaning those "liberated" peoples? Then another FAIL.
You don't know their critiria.
You didn't go to Nazi Germany in 1940s and conduct a poll asking whether people would like to be "liberated" by you.


make something seem reasonable: to serve as an acceptable reason or excuse for something
"Acceptable" reason already implies that it is universal, not subjective. Otherwise who is to define what is "acceptable"?
But whatever, if you want it to be subjective, I'll rephrase myself for you hoping it will make you feel more comfortable.


and justifying somehting is not the same as proving it "right" in absolute terms
If you were following this definition all along, I wonder how come it took you so fricking long to point it out. Or maybe you werent? Maybe you noticed that your argument was hopeless and decided to change your definition? It looks more like that to me.


"people don't want what you want AT ALL", which is clearly different to "not all people want what you want".
It was meant to be understood that way.


But apparently only you are allowed to make value judgements.
And how many times I have said that you are allowed to do the same but not for me and not for Europeans in general?


Except that people do provide justifications. If you refuse to accept them that's your own opinion, not a scientifically proven fact.
I'll now replace justifications with being "right in absolute terms". Are you glad now that I am following your definition? It would be nice if you did the same when I was asking you to.


It clearly isn't basic material for you, as you haven't even grasped the meaning of the word "justify".
And you haven't even grasped the meaning of the word "democracy". Nice.


Can you equally rationally justify pushing him under the car
Since, by your own (new) definition, justification is a purely subjective thing - yes of course I can justify it in any way I want. I pushed that person under a car because I didn't like his hair - that's my RATIONAL justification. :)


not all justifications are equal
Oh really? They are equal to me.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No. He recognizes that his views are not absolute and if he wants his views enforced anyway that is fine. You don't seem to recognize the same thing.

If you want your views enforced, why does it matter if you reconginse that they are not absolute in the abstract sense? You are still acting as if they are absolute. If I hold a gun to your head and make you do exactly what I say, it hardly matters if I say that I have the "right" to do it or not. In fact, doing it but refusing to justify it is simply intellectual cowardice.



Again you are talking about some "right" that they had in the first place. Germany had no "right" to sovereignty. Britain had no "right" to fight Germany. This are all actions that have no moral universal "right" backing them up, only a subjective justification which they themselves made up.


So your argument is that no-one has any "right" to do anything. Fine. Why did you choose to jump ito this thread of all threads with such a trivial bit of semantics when you could in fact reduce many discussions to this same irrational assertion?


If this was really so, I'd have absolutely no problem with that. But you evidently tried to justify it for others and you still appear to be trying to. "They want liberty", "they want this", "they want that". You don't know what they want, and whatever it is they want can be easily manipulated by whoever is in control.
If you acknowlege that it is only your personal critiria - fine.

So again, you think it's better to just say "I did it because I wanted to" rather than to explain why you support an action? This is anti-intellectual and irrational. Most western Europeans did want Nazi Germany defeated by the way, find me one historian who disagrees.



Your logic is incorrect.
"Similair values exist in other religions which didn't lead to liberalism and in other societies which aren't liberal." - that is true
"It's a fundamental human value." - that is false and it doesn't follow from the above sentence.

It doesn't follow, but it's still true, because as I showed in my last post, people want to stay alive, and therefore the encoding of moral systems to protect "life" is a fundamental human value.


This question is rather pointless. In essense you are asking me: "name a society in which a thing that is thought of as being bad is not considered to be bad".
What the hell is this supposed to mean? The whole point is that these "special circumstances" can be defined in any possible way: jews, witches, criminals, infidels, foreigners, etc.
And even if 100% of human population considered murder to be bad it wouldn't make it bad at all.

The concept "bad" is a human invention, so yes, it would.



All right, then it is part of some other philosophy/religion/way_of_life that you want/wanted to justify imposing on others.

No, it's one they themselves wanted.


There is definately a rational reason why murder is unacceptable in society unless cirtain circumstances, but it is not a rational explanation why murder is wrong.

See my answer on "bad", replace "bad" with "wrong", and you have your answer to this.


The point is that Nazis did not go against evolution at all. You can't describe British action as being in defence of evolution.

I clearly wasn't saying the war was about belief in the concept of evolution, I'm saying that certain human values, which most of us recognise as "common decency", are evolutionary, and the Allies, for all their flaws, resembled those values more closely than the Nazis at the time of WW2,, which is why most people favoured the Allies, and why I think I could even prove to many people who didn't support them why they should support them by their own criteria (because I think many of them would accept certain criteria you reject).




By Nazi definition, German people would only stay alive and be happy if the jewish-communist infiltration was gotten rid of and part of Europe was conquered.

But they were acting on a false premise, a conspiracy theory. Their conspiracy theories about Jews were not subjective, they were objective beliefs, and they were factually incorrect. So their belief that they could ony stay alive, be happy, and be prosperous under Nazism was incorrect.


It's not "implicitly understood", you keep stating it. You insist that others (West Europeans) have same values as you when they don't have to.

I didn't say they "have to", I just said they do, and you admitted in the quote above that they wanted to stay alive and be "happy". Now if one could prove to them rationally that these things could be better achieved under liberal capitalism/social democracy than under Nazism, and the only thing preventing them from seeing this was incorrect objective beliefs about Jews economic power and political persuasions, then why should their opinion be respected?



How many times have I said already that I am not telling you that imposing a view is bad. How come you fail to read this so many times?

Why would you prefer me to a.) respect other people's opinions rather than b.) not respect them, if you didn't think a.) was preferable to b.)?




Are you reading what I write at all?
Hello.
Please read my posts. I did not say that imposing a view is bad. I've said the contrary numerous times and I'm tired of repeating it.

So if I come to your house with a gun and order to you do exactly what I say, you wouldn't think this was bad? Or is it ok for this to happen in the abstract sense as part of a moral and philosophical system, and only undesirable when it physically happens to you? I think you need to develop some empathy, ie a basic recognition of how you would personally like to be treated, and then to reach the level of understanding that most of us have reached which states that morality is an etension of the reasoning that "one day that could be me".



Their critiria meaning those "liberated" peoples? Then another FAIL.
You don't know their critiria.
You didn't go to Nazi Germany in 1940s and conduct a poll asking whether people would like to be "liberated" by you.

If the people Hitler was conquering had wanted to live under Nazi rule, they'd have voted for Nazis themselves.


"Acceptable" reason already implies that it is universal, not subjective. Otherwise who is to define what is "acceptable"?

Acceptable is somehting that can be logically defended. I've logically defended my support for defeating Nazism.




If you were following this definition all along, I wonder how come it took you so fricking long to point it out. Or maybe you werent? Maybe you noticed that your argument was hopeless and decided to change your definition? It looks more like that to me.

Really? It seems like you decided I was arguing for an "absolute moral right" for a certain action, but yet, you can't find where I said those words.



It was meant to be understood that way.

Maybe you noticed that your argument was hopeless and decided to change your definition? It looks more like that to me



And how many times I have said that you are allowed to do the same but not for me and not for Europeans in general?

So you can tell me what I'm *allowed* to do? This looks very absolutist. What if I do what I'm not *allowed* to do, ie what you described above? Would you be justified in stopping me by force? Because what you described above, what you just said said is not *allowed*, is exactly what Hitler was doing. So by your own absolutist definition of what is not *allowed*, Hitler was wrong. So therefore, defeating him and implementing a system which did less of what was not *allowed* by your own absolutist standards was right



I'll now replace justifications with being "right in absolute terms". Are you glad now that I am following your definition? It would be nice if you did the same when I was asking you to.

Well, "being right in absolute terms" is something I never argued and had no interest in arguing, so if we use that definition, there is no argument.




Since, by your own (new) definition, justification is a purely subjective thing - yes of course I can justify it in any way I want. I pushed that person under a car because I didn't like his hair - that's my RATIONAL justification. :)


That's an irrational justification.



Oh really? They are equal to me

In which case, you're an irrational anti-intellectual not fit to engage in adult discussion. Go waste someone else's time.

[Kami]

If you want your views enforced, why does it matter if you reconginse that they are not absolute in the abstract sense?
To be honest, I don't know why, but I find it important. It annoys me when people proclaim their values to be universal values, trying to justify (for others) imposing them on society. It has something to do with my personality (and I don't only mean "INTP" thing here).


If I hold a gun to your head and make you do exactly what I say, it hardly matters if I say that I have the "right" to do it or not.
Technically maybe it doesn't, but for me it actually does. This maybe laughable, but if a person held a gun to my head and told me he had the right to force me to do something, I might actually try to convince him that he doesn't have such right. Of course having a gun pointed to my head I'd probably fail, but whatever. :)


So your argument is that no-one has any "right" to do anything. Fine.
Thank you. And why this "so your argument is.."? I've been stating this for a while actually, don't make it look as if you didn't understand what I was saying until now.


to this same irrational assertion?
Why would this assertion be irrational? What logic does it go against? The statement itself, that is "all human actions are fundamentally irrational in absolute terms" is rational.


find me one historian who disagrees.
First of all, this is not a valid argument for anything. If Nazi Germany won the war we would have plenty of historians who disagree - because as you know, history is written by the winners.
Second of all, actually if I look hard enough I will find "historians" who disagree - neo-Nazis mostly, whose published books are hardly read.


people want to stay alive, and therefore the encoding of moral systems to protect "life" is a fundamental human value.
I'd agree, but it's far more complicated than that. Generally life is strongly tied to happiness, without which people usually tend to get rid of thier lives. What if they believe that a certain group of people is an obsticle to their happiness? Parasites that don't kill you, but make you suffer?
You know, if people cared only about their lives and nothing else, the Poles could have easily handed over Danzig to Germany or even allied to Germany as Hitler proposed in 1938. But they didn't - they wanted to sacrifice their lives for the cause of defending that piece of land which they've taken from Germany by force in WW1. That piece of land didn't objectively make them any wealthier or any better off, but having that piece of land did make them happier and they wanted to defend it at any cost.
If you go by the logic that "life" is a fundamental human value that must be protected unconditionally, you would have to oppose slaves killing their owners. Would you?


So their belief that they could ony stay alive, be happy, and be prosperous under Nazism was incorrect.
What if it had nothing to do with objective prosperity or staying alive - but just happiness? What if they were fundamentally unhappy of Jews being in their society? Happiness is subjective and not rational. When people go to fight for their happiness - and consequently for their lives as well, their actions invariably become irrational.


Now if one could prove to them rationally that these things could be better achieved under liberal capitalism/social democracy than under Nazism
You can manipulate what makes them happy - that is true. Most people under Nazi regime probably thought getting rid of Jews made them happy.


Why would you prefer me to a.) respect other people's opinions rather than b.) not respect them, if you didn't think a.) was preferable to b.)?
Because it is easier for me to keep a conversation with a person who respects others opinions and it annoys me less?


Or is it ok for this to happen in the abstract sense as part of a moral and philosophical system, and only undesirable when it physically happens to you?
Pretty much, yes. I WOULD think that you are an asshole for making me do something against my will, but you know what - my whole life consists of doing things against my will - and that is considered normal by society.


If the people Hitler was conquering had wanted to live under Nazi rule
Not necessarily, many probably became Nazi during German occupation. Nonetheless I do agree that most of the occupied peoples probably prefered not to live under German control. But why would you want to sacrifice your lives in order to make true their wishes - rather than the German wishes who wanted these territories to be under their occupation? My wish against his wish. Why would you align with one against another? Is it just your unconditional desire to preserve life no matter how it relates to happiness?


So you can tell me what I'm *allowed* to do?
Oh god, again. :) For the purpose of this discussion, whenever you see me saying "allowed" - that means I'd prefer you didn't do this because to me it makes no sense.


That's an irrational justification.
A guy had certain type of hair. Seeing that hair made me unhappy for any reason or for no reason at all. I decided to end that guy's life and burn his hair so I don't have to see it again. You can't tell me what should make me happy and what shouldn't.

If this is irrational - then your justification for defeating Nazi Germany is also irrational then.


Edit: I'm going on vacation to Italy, please be patient if I don't repond for a while.

[demagogic_schizoid]

For the purpose of this discussion, whenever you see me saying "allowed" - that means I'd prefer you didn't do this because to me it makes no sense.

ok. :) for the pruposes of this conversation, and in fact, anything I say, "x is good" should be implicitly understood as "x is good in my opinion", because it seems to me so obvious that what I'm writing is only my opinion, that there's no need to quallify it as such.

Enjoy your vacation in Italy. My brother is going on vacation to Russia tomorrow, maybe you'll cross each other in Ukraine or something.