70 Years Since V-E Day

[Stevicus]

Has the world learned anything since 1945? Is the world more stable or less stable today? Was World War II really the "Good War," and has it set today's standard for defining what is a "just war" versus an "unjust war"?

 

[Revoltingest]

History teaches us that history teaches us nothing.

 

[Laika]

World War II is a "just war" in response to the fact the Nazi's invaded Poland as an act of aggression (and then preceded to annex most of Europe), and then what the Nazis did in the Holocaust (which didn't become public knowledge until the end of the war). Both of these had to then be codified into international law as crime against peace/crimes against humanity at the Nuremburg trials. That does represent some measure of progress as they were essentially new moral concepts developed in response to the industrialised nature of murder both within and between nations.

The reason World War II can set the standard for what constitutes a just war is because the Nazi's continue to represent the lowest to which human beings can sink because they combined genocidal intent with the industrial ability to do it. It was far from unique as it belonged to the long european tradition of colonial genocides. Europeans regularly tried to wipe out races and peoples, violated treaties, engaged in wars of aggression and used double standards to advance their empires. The Nazis took it one step further by doing it to their own people and their european neighbours.

The World is more stable because empires are no longer attached to a given territory; free trade and free flow of capital mean that we no longer necessarily have to engage in wars. [edit; this argument was made in 1913 so I don't think free trade automatically safegaurds world peace]. This arrangement is enforced by the global hegemony of the United States given the illusion of stability, (broken by the Iraq Invasion which was clearly an act of aggression). The capacity and willingess to wage total war is dormanant and instead we live in a world where there are 'police actions' to enforce these standards, especially to keep the borders open to trade.

We are certianly more civilised than we were, but that is because we have a single world system with only relatively minor challanges to it. we still largely retain the capacity to repeat the mistakes of the past through seperate nation-states. When we evolve to a point where world (democratic) government becomes the norm I think we might be a little more certian the threat of National Socialism is behind us. (unless we get a world government by world conquest).

 

[Nietzsche]

Has the world learned anything since 1945? Was World War II really the "Good War"

Yes. Without any qualifiers, yes. We were fighting what was without question the most terrible organization to ever exist. A set of people fully prepared to build an empire stretching from Burgundy to the Ural Mountains and from the Arctic Circle to the Alps. An Empire built on a foundation of hate, on the backs of slave-labour drawn from conquered people & social 'deviants'. They kept the Death Camps running to the last day of the war, when the entire world was literally falling in on Germany. The Nazis fully intended, were planning, on turning Europe into nothing but a mass-grave.

It is simply impossible to over-state the abject horror involved with the Holocaust & the European front of WW2, the Eastern Front in particular. And if you want to really learn to hate humanity as a concept, here's this;

The Death Camps? The actual, directed industrialized murder? That only started in 1942. The Nazis only made a concerted effort at gassing & exterminating inferiors for the last three years of the war. Until then, the idea was to ship them all off past the Urals to die on their own in Siberia. But the mechanized murder dealt out by the Gas Chambers & Einsatzgruppen only came about when it became obvious that Barbarossa was going to take longer than expected.

Is the world more stable or less stable today?

I suggest taking a cursory glance at the centuries preceding 1900. Two 'Big Wars' in Europe was considered a treat.

 

[Shad]

Has the world learned anything since 1945? Is the world more stable or less stable today? Was World War II really the "Good War," and has it set today's standard for defining what is a "just war" versus an "unjust war"?

The world is more stable for nation-state organizations and structures. It is less stable in places where this attempted monopoly fails. The "grand" empire-states have handed over control of these areas to nation-states which are beginning to fail or have failed repeatedly. So I as a member of a stable nation-state can say yes but someone from a known conflict zone would argue otherwise. So nothing has really changed for the statue-quo states which survived.

World War 2 was not the "Good War". This is propaganda we tell ourselves in order to rest easily with the past. We helped the Soviet Union conquer Eastern Europe and did nothing to help those within the area. We saw the rise of a Cold War in which the world was divided in 3, with the 3rd faction being a non-factor until the 70s. This was due to the very help we supplied for a political state which we should have opposed. We face global nuclear war a few times due to the Cold War. We have replaced territorial empires with economic empires yet still fight over the territory we do not wish to hold as nations if they bicker with said empires.. Puppets do a better job as long as they follow the whim of economic empires.

While people did bring up the point about the Holocaust and death camps these same people seem oblivious to the state, above, which we support that is guilty of the same crimes for a far longer period of time.

 

[Flankerl]

Has the world learned anything since 1945?

Why do I always get this urge to hit people in the face when they ask this question on oh so many topics?

But the mechanized murder dealt out by the Gas Chambers & Einsatzgruppen only came about when it became obvious that Barbarossa was going to take longer than expected.

The Einsatzgruppen started their work immediately after the invasion of the USSR began.

This arrangement is enforced by the global hegemony of the United States given the illusion of stability, (broken by the Iraq Invasion which was clearly an act of aggression).

*cough Vietnam*
*cough all of Central America*
*cough all those proxy wars in Africa*

Both of these had to then be codified into international law as crime against peace/crimes against humanity at the Nuremburg trials. That does represent some measure of progress as they were essentially new moral concepts developed in response to the industrialised nature of murder both within and between nations.

The Nuremburg Trials are a really really bad case for international law. For example people where judged according to laws that didn't exist when they did what they did.

And that's just... well...



Also let's all remember that the actual starting goal of WW2 from the Allies side wasn't achieved till 1989, the freedom of Poland.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Einsatzgruppen started their work immediately after the invasion of the USSR began.

Indeed, but it only picked up in earnest in '42. Until then they were "just" shooting the leadership and partisans. Of course, there is the order distributed by the SS saying that "Where there is a Partisan there is a Jew, and where there is a Jew there is a Partisan". But even then, you were "only" looking at handfuls of 3-4,000 during their 'operations'. Only in 42 do you start to see the truly genocidal & annihilatory scope come in to play. Ten, twenty, thirty-thousand or more being killed at once.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Has the world learned anything since 1945? Is the world more stable or less stable today? Was World War II really the "Good War," and has it set today's standard for defining what is a "just war" versus an "unjust war"?

The last man to win the Nobel peace prize before the ceremonies were stopped for the war- did so for his pacifist stance and active role in preventing the wests military opposition to Hitler's socialist party. He had the trophy to admire on his mantelpiece while 50+ million innocent people died

perhaps if the west had gone in with a pre-emptive strike on the Nazi's before they invaded Poland, academics and historians would have recorded it as an unjust hawkish act of aggression, and certainly there would be no prize winners for the millions of lives saved- but wouldn't that be worth much more than the opinion of academics?

 

[Flankerl]

Indeed, but it only picked up in earnest in '42. Until then they were "just" shooting the leadership and partisans. Of course, there is the order distributed by the SS saying that "Where there is a Partisan there is a Jew, and where there is a Jew there is a Partisan". But even then, you were "only" looking at handfuls of 3-4,000 during their 'operations'. Only in 42 do you start to see the truly genocidal & annihilatory scope come in to play. Ten, twenty, thirty-thousand or more being killed at once.

Well I personally view what the Einsatzgruppen did in 41 already as kinda bad. Estland was Judenfrei, Latvia 35238 murdered, Lithuania 136421 and Belarus 41828.

Though it also shows the "low" "capacity" of mass executions. Which isn't really that good.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hitler's socialist party.

Don't you dare start that. I refuse to allow such weasel-words & half-truths. Hitler's movement was born out of Fascism, the "Third Way" between Socialism & Democracy and Capitalism & Communism. Hitler's party had undoubted Socialist elements, but the word that precedes it is far, far more important. National. As in, within one state. To the exclusion of all others. The NSDAP was a Volkisch party. The only serious Socialist-leaning individuals to get anywhere near power in the NSDAP were the Strassers and Goebbels.

The rest of the Nazi movement were National-Conservative anti-Revolutionaries(Franz von Pappen and such), Military Authoritarians(Hermann Goering, Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein, ect), the Volkisch-movement(Himmler, Rosenberg, Hess) and the Pragmatists(Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, Dönitz, Speer, Lammers, Walther Funk, so on).

perhaps if the west had gone in with a pre-emptive strike on the Nazi's before they invaded Poland, academics and historians would have recorded it as an unjust hawkish act of aggression, and certainly there would be no prize winners for the millions of lives saved- but wouldn't that be worth much more than the opinion of academics?

I hate it when people who clearly don't understand the situation try to posit alternative solutions, solutions that fly in the face of the prevailing moods & temperament of the era. Remember the "Lost Generation"? The literal entire generation of young men lost to the Trenches?

You speak much of what could have been done, but the people running the governments were the survivors of the generation butchered & damned in Flander's Fields No Man's Land. An experience far worse than any supernatural hell or punishment that could be imagined by any deity, topped only by the war it itself caused 20 years later.

 

[Wirey]

The last man to win the Nobel peace prize before the ceremonies were stopped for the war- did so for his pacifist stance and active role in preventing the wests military opposition to Hitler's socialist party. He had the trophy to admire on his mantelpiece while 50+ million innocent people died

perhaps if the west had gone in with a pre-emptive strike on the Nazi's before they invaded Poland, academics and historians would have recorded it as an unjust hawkish act of aggression, and certainly there would be no prize winners for the millions of lives saved- but wouldn't that be worth much more than the opinion of academics?

Is this meant seriously?

 

[Flankerl]

Don't you dare start that. I refuse to allow such weasel-words & half-truths. Hitler's movement was born out of Fascism, the "Third Way" between Socialism & Democracy and Capitalism & Communism. Hitler's party had undoubted Socialist elements, but the word that precedes it is far, far more important. National. As in, within one state. To the exclusion of all others. The NSDAP was a Volkisch party. The only serious Socialist-leaning individuals to get anywhere near power in the NSDAP were the Strassers and Goebbels.

The rest of the Nazi movement were National-Conservative anti-Revolutionaries(Franz von Pappen and such), Military Authoritarians(Hermann Goering, Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein, ect), the Volkisch-movement(Himmler, Rosenberg, Hess) and the Pragmatists(Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, Dönitz, Speer, Lammers, Walther Funk, so on).

Also it completely ignores the fact that the indeed Socialist/Left wing of the NSDAP was entirely purged during the Night of the long knives.

And considering the likes of Strasser someone like Goebbels was a low level figure of the Left wing.

 

[Nietzsche]

Also it completely ignores the fact that the indeed Socialist/Left wing of the NSDAP was entirely purged during the Night of the long knives.

And considering the likes of Strasser someone like Goebbels was a low level figure of the Left wing.

Danke schoen.

 

[Wirey]

Danke schoen.

No Irish!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Don't you dare start that. I refuse to allow such weasel-words & half-truths. Hitler's movement was born out of Fascism, the "Third Way" between Socialism & Democracy and Capitalism & Communism. Hitler's party had undoubted Socialist elements, but the word that precedes it is far, far more important. National. As in, within one state. To the exclusion of all others. The NSDAP was a Volkisch party. The only serious Socialist-leaning individuals to get anywhere near power in the NSDAP were the Strassers and Goebbels.

The rest of the Nazi movement were National-Conservative anti-Revolutionaries(Franz von Pappen and such), Military Authoritarians(Hermann Goering, Heinz Guderian, Erich von Manstein, ect), the Volkisch-movement(Himmler, Rosenberg, Hess) and the Pragmatists(Reinhard Heydrich, Adolf Eichmann, Dönitz, Speer, Lammers, Walther Funk, so on).


I hate it when people who clearly don't understand the situation try to posit alternative solutions, solutions that fly in the face of the prevailing moods & temperament of the era. Remember the "Lost Generation"? The literal entire generation of young men lost to the Trenches?

You speak much of what could have been done, but the people running the governments were the survivors of the generation butchered & damned in Flander's Fields No Man's Land. An experience far worse than any supernatural hell or punishment that could be imagined by any deity, topped only by the war it itself caused 20 years later.

The Z in NAZI stands for socialist. Is this verboten to acknowledge?

 

[Wirey]

The Z in NAZI stands for socialist. Is this verboten to acknowledge?

Germany had a Nationalist and Socialist party. Hitler combined the names and called it the National Socialist Party to get votes. You can read this stuff on line with little effort. His policies were actually anything but socialist. He rolled unions into one organization and then had it run by the government (opposite of socialist). He disenfranchised Jews (opposite of socialist). Google "Was Hitler a socialist?" and let me know what you find. I can call myself Jesus all day, but it ain't true.

 

[Nietzsche]

The Z in NAZI stands for socialist. Is this verboten to acknowledge?

You're either being intentionally stupid or you're close to being hopelessly ignorant. You really want to do this with me? This a path you want to go down? The D in DPRK stands for "Democratic", but I doubt you'd claim that makes it so.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're either being intentionally stupid or you're close to being hopelessly ignorant. You really want to do this with me? This a path you want to go down? The D in DPRK stands for "Democratic", but I doubt you'd claim that makes it so.

No need to get personal Niechey, so you're saying he wasn't really a socialist after all, he was more of a hands off, small government, let people be free to thrive kinda guy? against centralized state control?

that's certainly an interesting take, I'm always open to new ideas.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Germany had a Nationalist and Socialist party. Hitler combined the names and called it the National Socialist Party to get votes. You can read this stuff on line with little effort. His policies were actually anything but socialist. He rolled unions into one organization and then had it run by the government (opposite of socialist). He disenfranchised Jews (opposite of socialist). Google "Was Hitler a socialist?" and let me know what you find. I can call myself Jesus all day, but it ain't true.

creating one massive state centralized union..... is the opposite of socialism?? so is that what you call free market capitalism... ?

also disenfranchising the wealthiest segment of society and confiscating their money ... Yes clearly also the opposite of socialism, that must be very high up on the Tea Party agenda then right?

I'm beginning to think those parallel universe theories might just be real!

 

[Nietzsche]

No need to get personal Niechey

I'm not making it personal, I am demonstrating my extreme displeasure with what I can only class as you either intentionally trying to push my buttons or a gross lack of knowledge regarding the topic.

so you're saying he wasn't really a socialist after all, he was more of a hands off, small government, let people be free to thrive kinda guy? against centralized state control?

Socialism is not a by-word for "big government". As for hands-off? Yes. Hitler did very little beyond giving generalized orders and having those beneath him(read as the entire German government) figure it out themselves. Nazi Germany was an utter nightmare in terms of how the government "functioned". It resembles a Feudal situation with competing vassals more than a modern bureaucracy. Compared to Mussolini's Italy & Stalin's Soviet Union, Hitler had more personal power but less actual government. He loathed "red tape". And because he refused to clarify zones of control & competence you had situations of competing spheres of influence wherin Hitler would only take a side once a winner looked clear.

The Nazi government simply cannot be codified using terms like Socialist, Fascist, so on and so forth, because there was no inherent "system" to describe. All power flowed from Hitler himself, and whatever he said was law. This is why I keep refering to it as a neo-Feudal situation. It's not perfect, but it is more-accurate than any notion it's one thing rather than the other.

that's certainly an interesting take, I'm always open to new ideas.

Ian Kershaw's "Hitler: Hubris" and "Hitler: Nemesis" would do you some good. They span his entire life from his schooldays in Linz to his burning body in a ditch outside the Fuehrerbunker.

creating one massive state centralized union..... is the opposite of socialism?? so is that what you call free market capitalism... ?

Hitler brought government regulation of the economy to an all-time low. And the NSDAP "Union" was not a Worker's Union by any stretch of the imagination. It was an attempt to further fragment the Leftist Opposition in Germany, nothing more.

also disenfranchising the wealthiest segment of society and confiscating their money ...

Care to cite a source there? Because I've got three different events just off the top of my head, of Hitler meeting with Industrialists to discuss lowering taxes & (further) loosening government control & regulation. That is without even starting to get into how major Industrialists & Bankers within Germany funded his party and were rewarded with favourable positions & first-dibs on confiscated property(taken largely from Jews, Socialist, Communist and Democratic Germans).

Yes clearly also the opposite of socialism, that must be very high up on the Tea Party agenda then right?

You're trying my patience.