• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nazinotstand,Dresden Germany has a big problem so does all europe

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
So "because they do it so can I"?

Uh, what?



If we are going to use a reductive right/left dichotomy then, no.

Sometimes it really is that simple.



So militarism, nationalism, crony capitalism, anti-communism, anti-social democracy, anti-trade unionism, minimal welfare state, ideology of competition and social hierarchy have no history on 'the right'? Should we consider these core 'leftist' values?

Why did Reagan et al. support such regimes during the Cold War then?

Er...Reagan ended the Cold War.

As for the others...you mean, Hoover, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton Ford and Bush sr.?

Five Republicans, Three Democrats...and the Democrats were the ones responsible for making the 'cold' war a very hot one. Kennedy was the 'Bay of Pigs" president...followed closely by the Cuban Missile Crisis. Johnson ramped up Vietnam by gutting Social Security to pay for increasing a very small advisory force to full blown invasion (a Republican got us out), Carter did absolutely nothing...but then, that's what Carter did, except for stupid stuff...

Oh...and it was two Republicans, Bush Sr and Reagan, who ENDED the cold war, although Clinton took the credit.

And they ALL 'supported such regimes' because of pure practicality. They didn't want the USSR to nuke us. And if anything proved that they WOULD have, if they needed to in order to achieve their political ends, the Cuban Missile Crisis did.

International politics is a nasty business. Nations...all nations...make really bad decisions based upon 'the ends justify the means,' when the ends are things like nuclear war, conquest, allowing the USSR, which was SO determined to acquire lands and peoples, to acquire US or our allies, or on their part, allowing US to acquire our own lands (which we weren't anywhere near as inclined to do) and destroy them.

So...the presidents, both D and R, did what they felt they had to in order to do just that. Destroy them. It figures that you would blame Reagan for the Cold War....when in fact he pretty much ENDED it.

Yet you keep using them to score cheap political points against 'the left' :shrug:

They may be points against the left, but they ain't CHEAP ones.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
They certainly had areas of overlapping interest, but this does not necessarily lead to support for the overall political project.

Not necessarily support, but they mostly remained quiet and chose to not openly oppose Hitler or any of his fanatical followers. Maybe they were afraid of him, or maybe they secretly supported some of Hitler's policies but didn't want to get their hands dirty. They were still patriots for Germany, even if they hated the tyrant. So, I imagine there must have been some internalized conflict.

They were all nationalists, to one degree or another. That was also a key thing which differentiated them from socialists and communists, who had more of an internationalist perspective. This made them a threat to nationalists.

Although often for pragmatic rather than moral reasons.

Bismarck pioneered government healthcare primarily as a means to undercut the socialists. Somewhat ironically, the actual socialists opposed the welfare state as it would mollify the working class and thus prevent genuine political revolution

Sure, although I think the leaders and aristocrats of Europe got a huge wake up call in 1848, so a lot of these social reforms might be attributable to wanting to maintain political stability. I think this is true throughout the Western world, at least those countries which have embraced liberal democracy. I seem to recall reading that the Kaiser interceded on behalf of striking coal miners and against the mine owners. That may have irked the aristocrats, but the people could then look at the Kaiser as being their savior, of sorts. (I remember a story about when the Kaiser was 5 years old, attending some royal funeral in England, where he bit the ankle of an English prince who had hemophilia. The guy seems like he was a bit deranged his entire life.)

It could be argued that Hitler was just another Kaiser and that Stalin was just another Tsar. Although both countries overthrew their monarchy by force, they seemed ill at ease and unsure of what to do with themselves afterwards. Maybe they just weren't ready for liberal democracy, and there's no telling if Russia will ever be ready for it. Even in Germany, which seems more or less stable, it's hard to say what direction they might take in the future.

In the West, I think many of those who fear some kind of radical takeover (whether left or right) are worrying needlessly. There's little chance of anything like that happening, at least in the short run. Liberals and progressives (along with more than a few socialists) are merely advocating for moderate social reforms to maintain political stability, not unlike Bismarck or Napoleon III doing so for pragmatic reasons.
 
Uh, what?

You are criticising people who use bad faith Nazi arguments to demonise the other side while doing exactly that.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

You think it really is that simple that several hundred years of politics under vastly different economic systems in vastly different historical circumstances can be neatly attached to a right/left dichotomy and then applied neatly to modern Pub/Dem partisan politics :D

"Anything any government did is 'left-wing', unless i like it then it's, by definition, 'right-wing'."

Er...Reagan ended the Cold War.

The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, it would have happened sooner or later regardless due to irrevocable structural weakness. Reagan possibly caused it to happen a few years earlier but this is pretty much unknowable as we only have one history.

You still avoided the question of whether the regimes Reagan supported should be considered 'leftist' because they had the features I mentioned: militarism, nationalism, crony capitalism, anti-communism, anti-social democracy, anti-trade unionism, minimal welfare state, ideology of competition and social hierarchy

Five Republicans, Three Democrats...and the Democrats were the ones responsible for making the 'cold' war a very hot one.

The point was not 'who's better Dems or Pubs', but were the US backed regimes better described as 'leftist' or 'right-wing'.

Anyway, seeing as you brought it up, Reagan's policies almost ended the Cold War in 1983 with a full on nuclear war only averted because a Soviet officer ignored protocol enacted due to Reagan's perceived unpredictability.

From the accounts of CIA and senior KGB officers,[4][5] by May 1981, obsessed with historical parallels with 1941 and Reaganite rhetoric, and with no defensive capability against the Pershing IIs, Soviet leaders believed the United States was preparing a secret nuclear attack on the USSR and initiated Operation RYaN. Under this, agents abroad monitored service and technical personnel who would implement a nuclear attack so as to be able either to preempt it or have mutually assured destruction.

[relations] had deteriorated to the point where the Soviet Union as a system—not just the Kremlin, not just Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, not just the KGB—but as a system, was geared to expect an attack and to retaliate very quickly to it. It was on hair-trigger alert. It was very nervous and prone to mistakes and accidents. The false alarm that happened on Petrov's watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in U.S.–Soviet relations.[8]

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

RYAN - Wikipedia

They may be points against the left, but they ain't CHEAP ones.

Is worthless more accurate than cheap then?

They certainly aren't well reasoned or based on any degree of understanding or willingness to apply any degree of critical insight to the question.
 

dianaiad

Well-Known Member
You are criticising people who use bad faith Nazi arguments to demonise the other side while doing exactly that.



You think it really is that simple that several hundred years of politics under vastly different economic systems in vastly different historical circumstances can be neatly attached to a right/left dichotomy and then applied neatly to modern Pub/Dem partisan politics :D

"Anything any government did is 'left-wing', unless i like it then it's, by definition, 'right-wing'."



The collapse of the Soviet Union ended the Cold War, it would have happened sooner or later regardless due to irrevocable structural weakness. Reagan possibly caused it to happen a few years earlier but this is pretty much unknowable as we only have one history.

You still avoided the question of whether the regimes Reagan supported should be considered 'leftist' because they had the features I mentioned: militarism, nationalism, crony capitalism, anti-communism, anti-social democracy, anti-trade unionism, minimal welfare state, ideology of competition and social hierarchy



The point was not 'who's better Dems or Pubs', but were the US backed regimes better described as 'leftist' or 'right-wing'.

Anyway, seeing as you brought it up, Reagan's policies almost ended the Cold War in 1983 with a full on nuclear war only averted because a Soviet officer ignored protocol enacted due to Reagan's perceived unpredictability.

From the accounts of CIA and senior KGB officers,[4][5] by May 1981, obsessed with historical parallels with 1941 and Reaganite rhetoric, and with no defensive capability against the Pershing IIs, Soviet leaders believed the United States was preparing a secret nuclear attack on the USSR and initiated Operation RYaN. Under this, agents abroad monitored service and technical personnel who would implement a nuclear attack so as to be able either to preempt it or have mutually assured destruction.

[relations] had deteriorated to the point where the Soviet Union as a system—not just the Kremlin, not just Soviet leader Yuri Andropov, not just the KGB—but as a system, was geared to expect an attack and to retaliate very quickly to it. It was on hair-trigger alert. It was very nervous and prone to mistakes and accidents. The false alarm that happened on Petrov's watch could not have come at a more dangerous, intense phase in U.S.–Soviet relations.[8]

1983 Soviet nuclear false alarm incident - Wikipedia

RYAN - Wikipedia



Is worthless more accurate than cheap then?

They certainly aren't well reasoned or based on any degree of understanding or willingness to apply any degree of critical insight to the question.

You are entitled to your own opinion.
As am I.

However, for someone who is criticizing me for insulting the left, you certainly are using the insults yourself.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Ah...you are quite right. This IS about semantics, actually; the use of 'fascist' and "Nazi' BY THE LEFT when they refer to anybody to the right of Mao.

Well, if that's what this is all about, then I can assure you that I am also critical of that practice. These are terms that people throw around to stir up emotions and rile folks up. But the right has also done its share of red-baiting and "pinko" talk, so both sides are guilty of it.

To be honest, I've only observed it as a recent phenomenon that the left is now being associated with Hitler. This is relatively new, whereas during most of my life, the left has been commonly associated with communists, namely the Soviet Union and Red China. Hitler was seen as an enemy of communism, although he was also seen as just as bad (or even worse) than communist governments, except he was at the opposite end of the spectrum. He was at the far right, not the far left. That's how it has generally been accepted in the traditional political spectrum.

But some people have argued that the traditional spectrum is outmoded and try to find new and inventive ways of gauging one's political position and finding a way to chart it.

And I'm the one who isn't buying it. Modern conservatives...in fact, any conservative that has ever existed in the USA...do not share many, if any, of the fascist/Nazi beliefs or approaches to government. Yes, there ARE extremists who buy into Nazism and fascism...and racism...today. But they are not "conservatives.'

They're viewed as having some overlap. The key component of both Nazism and fascism is nationalism. That was their emphasis and focus. I don't think Hitler cared all that much "economic systems" as much as just supporting whatever was necessary to achieve his nationalistic aspirations, which a lot of Germans supported at the time and had been a prevalent ideal in German politics for generations.

But if we're talking about modern conservatives in America today, then I agree that they share very little in common with the extremist factions you mention. But by the same token, modern liberals, progressives, and even socialists can hardly be compared with the extremist factions which are under discussion here. I find it incredulous that there are those out there who expect people to believe that the typical Western democratic socialist is anything like Stalin or Mao or Hitler.

So, it's ludicrous when it comes from both sides.

You talk about 'semantics' but it is the LEFT which has been using semantics here to insult anybody who objects to its ideology. I'm simply pointing out that it is wrong.

Both sides do it, although I would agree that it's wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right. But I don't know if pointing that out does any good. The trouble with our adversarial political system is that both sides want to win so badly that they don't really care about what's wrong or what's right.

Some people think both sides should try to sit down, discuss their differences like civilized adults, and reach some sort of mutually beneficial compromise. But, forget those people. What do they know? Arguing is much more fun.

No. A German airdreamed about what would happen as a natural evolution of government. The 'communism' he described bore absolutely no relation to the communism that actually was put into place.

Well, maybe so. He never lived to see it. Regarding the communism that was put into place, it went through different stages. At the beginning, they may have genuinely believed that their revolution would spread to other countries and possibly even a communist world. When that didn't really pan out as expected, they ended up taking the course that they did.

To be sure, they were in a pretty dismal situation leading up to the Revolution and the years following. Widespread hunger, despair, and the devastation brought about by WW1 can bring people to the point of supporting whichever leader they think will make it better.

Yes, because they belonged to the communist party and thus opposed HIM, It wasn't because their beliefs were that violently in opposition to the things he actually did. Those communists were just as racist, for instance,as he was.

Perhaps, although the communists' official position was anti-racist and anti-fascist.

Hey. I'm not the one who claimed that his opposition to Communists happened before there were any dealings with Russia. That's insane, when one considers that Germany's eastern border was right up against Poland, and Poland was an important part of the 1917 revolution...and very much communist. "Dealings with Russia?" SERIOUSLY?

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. If we're just talking about Hitler's opposition to communists, he would have likely been more concerned about communists within his own country first and foremost. In 1917, Hitler was on the Western Front and probably wasn't thinking much about Russia at that time. Although Germany was doing better on the Eastern Front, where the Russian lines were more or less collapsing and the country was in disarray. Opposition to the Tsar was widespread, but the Bolsheviks were only one of many factions at the time. When the Tsar abdicated, the Duma was to take control, call for elections, and set up a provisional government.

Poland was part of the Russian Empire at the time, although there's a history behind that as well. In any case, there was a growing movement towards independence, which they ultimately got after WW1. There were Poles and Germans, along with Americans, British, Japanese, and other Allied powers - all fighting on the side of the Whites against the Reds in the Russian Civil War.

But Hitler wasn't a part of that. In Germany, a communist government briefly took over in Bavaria, which was overthrown. Hitler was very much anti-communist because he saw them as a threat to his own country, and this was long before he had any direct "dealings with Russia."

If you're talking about German dealings with Russia and not just involving Hitler, then that goes back centuries and centuries. The Germans and Russians have a long history of "dealings" with each other.
 
You are entitled to your own opinion.
As am I.

You still didn't offer your opinion on whether or not the regimes Reagan supported should be considered 'left wing' because they favoured militarism, nationalism, crony capitalism, anti-communism, anti-social democracy, anti-trade unionism, minimal welfare state, ideology of competition and social hierarchy. Funny that...

However, for someone who is criticizing me for insulting the left, you certainly are using the insults yourself.

I'm not criticising you for insulting the left but for agreeing that left/right labels were 'dumb' then insisting they were in fact very useful if it enabled you to link your political opponents to Hitler with facile and specious reasoning.

Also, pointing out that your arguments are very poorly reasoned is not an insult. Using your logic an absolute monarchy is 'far-left'.
 
Top