This will be closing soon, so I wanted to offer something to raise the tone a bit. Believe it or not I have it on good authority that this is really used as a teaching aid on WWII.
I can understand why you'd want to keep evading the implications of what I'm saying, but when did I ever mention disarming?
You didn't and my comments should have been clearer. Others here have argued that disarmament is the solution to preventing future wars.
OK, so why not quote them instead of me?
Quote:
I thought your example was worth discussing...
Great,; I'm looking forward to your response.
[/quote]
I believe disarmament is possible. Before we start with disarmament however, we must establish the conditions that will make it possible first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns. We can do this through education and by being role models for others, especially our children. This will reduce the likelihood of some latter day Napoleon Bonapart or Adolf Hitler coming along (after we have disarmed), rearming and dragging their neighbors into war.
Meanwhile the west knew full well Hitler was violating Versaille Treaty by re-arming Germany for war.
Both the French and the Brits had their heads in the sand starting in the mid-1930s. If they would have acted then, they could have crushed Hitler's regime and avoided WWII. Instead, they chose to appeasement -- wishfully thinking that Hitler would stop after snapping up "just one more piece" of Europe.
_______________________________________
[b]Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!![/b]
Hitler started rearming in 1933. He publicly announced it in 1935 and left the League of Nations that same year.
Appeals to the inexonerable force of "nature" are a denial of intelligence, and a cop out most often used as a justification for paranoia. xenophobia and greed. The roots of the Second World War in a nutshell, as anyone who has read Hitlers tawdry pesudoscientific diatribes can see.
So you subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of history? I'm more with Tolstoy on this. Hitler was acted upon as much as he directed events. He was surrounded by paranoia, xenophobia and greed, quatlities which haven't been unknown beyond 1930s Europe.
By the way, I didn't say "force of nature." My use of "nature" meant more like "character."
first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns
...and the nature of our species...
Precisely.
Since you mention precision, what, precisely, do you think Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Pearle and Rice learn from Munich? They obviously learned something, as their putrid corpses haven't swung from a well-earned gibbet.
In the HNN history documentary I watched, there were Germans who lived in Germany who said that most people didn't take Hitler very seriously. And they didn't believe European leaders would take him seriously. Hitler was a crazy man who would be routed in the next election as far as they were concerned. And there have been elections during the cold war era that were unfair and marred by violence, and where government soldiers guarded polling stattions and standing menacingly too close to frightened people casting ballots into transparent glass ballot boxes. In this hemisphere.
In the HNN history documentary I watched, there were Germans who lived in Germany who said that most people didn't take Hitler very seriously. And they didn't believe European leaders would take him seriously. Hitler was a crazy man who would be routed in the next election as far as they were concerned.
Liza Minelli was quite good in that picture, wasn't she?
Appeals to the inexonerable force of "nature" are a denial of intelligence, and a cop out most often used as a justification for paranoia. xenophobia and greed. The roots of the Second World War in a nutshell, as anyone who has read Hitlers tawdry pesudoscientific diatribes can see.
So you subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of history? I'm more with Tolstoy on this. Hitler was acted upon as much as he directed events. He was surrounded by paranoia, xenophobia and greed, quatlities which haven't been unknown beyond 1930s Europe.
By the way, I didn't say "force of nature." My use of "nature" meant more like "character."
No. I am more in line with the view that there is a symbiotic relationship between persons (great "men" if you like) and the social relations that suround them. But the issue here is "nature" and intelligence. I think there is a clear distinction to be made between "social relations" and "nature". Social relations are in many ways a by-product of applied intelligence, and the intention of those who appeal to "nature" as the cause of human folly are just sidestepping the social responsibility of applying ones intelligence to bettering "social relations."
So for example one considers Stalin in the context of the social relations that suround him, while at the same time realizing that he is part and parcel of the process of creating those social relations. Was the Russian Revolution inevitable? I think so. Would there have been leadership to guide it if Lenin had slipped on the ice and froze to death in Finland? Certainly so. But at the same time these persons influence the outcomes to a greater or lesser extent.
I also think that some kind of tyrrany was more or less an inevitable part of that revolution, but I also think that the post Lenin leadership struggle itself intensified the infighting among the party brass, and as a result the most paranoid, ruthless and guileful one came out on top. I doubt that had Lenin continued in power into the 30's and 40's that he would have needed to assert his authority in such a bold and agressive manner, even though I think he was capable of doing so. But I doubt he would have needed to because his reigning authority had already been established in the revolution and the Civil War itself.
The party was his clearly. This was not so for those who came after.
Thus, I don't support alternate theories about Trotsky salvaging the revolution from Stalin. I see no evidence that he was any less ruthless. And indeed had he come to power, I believe very much that he would have had to assert the same kind of authoritarian measures to hold onto power. So, the relationships are simbiotic.
In the HNN history documentary I watched, there were Germans who lived in Germany who said that most people didn't take Hitler very seriously. And they didn't believe European leaders would take him seriously. Hitler was a crazy man who would be routed in the next election as far as they were concerned.
Liza Minelli was quite good in that picture, wasn't she?
There are few history lessons better than listening to people who actually lived it.
This will be closing soon, so I wanted to offer something to raise the tone a bit. Believe it or not I have it on good authority that this is really used as a teaching aid on WWII.
Great,; I'm looking forward to your response.
[/quote]
I believe disarmament is possible. Before we start with disarmament however, we must establish the conditions that will make it possible first. We need to change our thought and behavior patterns. We can do this through education and by being role models for others, especially our children. This will reduce the likelihood of some latter day Napoleon Bonapart or Adolf Hitler coming along (after we have disarmed), rearming and dragging their neighbors into war.
Hitler started rearming in 1933. He publicly announced it in 1935 and left the League of Nations that same year.
So you subscribe to the "Great Man" theory of history? I'm more with Tolstoy on this. Hitler was acted upon as much as he directed events. He was surrounded by paranoia, xenophobia and greed, quatlities which haven't been unknown beyond 1930s Europe.
By the way, I didn't say "force of nature." My use of "nature" meant more like "character."
Since you mention precision, what, precisely, do you think Bush, Cheney, Powell, Wolfowitz, Pearle and Rice learn from Munich? They obviously learned something, as their putrid corpses haven't swung from a well-earned gibbet.
In the HNN history documentary I watched, there were Germans who lived in Germany who said that most people didn't take Hitler very seriously. And they didn't believe European leaders would take him seriously. Hitler was a crazy man who would be routed in the next election as far as they were concerned. And there have been elections during the cold war era that were unfair and marred by violence, and where government soldiers guarded polling stattions and standing menacingly too close to frightened people casting ballots into transparent glass ballot boxes. In this hemisphere.
Liza Minelli was quite good in that picture, wasn't she?
No. I am more in line with the view that there is a symbiotic relationship between persons (great "men" if you like) and the social relations that suround them. But the issue here is "nature" and intelligence. I think there is a clear distinction to be made between "social relations" and "nature". Social relations are in many ways a by-product of applied intelligence, and the intention of those who appeal to "nature" as the cause of human folly are just sidestepping the social responsibility of applying ones intelligence to bettering "social relations."
So for example one considers Stalin in the context of the social relations that suround him, while at the same time realizing that he is part and parcel of the process of creating those social relations. Was the Russian Revolution inevitable? I think so. Would there have been leadership to guide it if Lenin had slipped on the ice and froze to death in Finland? Certainly so. But at the same time these persons influence the outcomes to a greater or lesser extent.
I also think that some kind of tyrrany was more or less an inevitable part of that revolution, but I also think that the post Lenin leadership struggle itself intensified the infighting among the party brass, and as a result the most paranoid, ruthless and guileful one came out on top. I doubt that had Lenin continued in power into the 30's and 40's that he would have needed to assert his authority in such a bold and agressive manner, even though I think he was capable of doing so. But I doubt he would have needed to because his reigning authority had already been established in the revolution and the Civil War itself.
The party was his clearly. This was not so for those who came after.
Thus, I don't support alternate theories about Trotsky salvaging the revolution from Stalin. I see no evidence that he was any less ruthless. And indeed had he come to power, I believe very much that he would have had to assert the same kind of authoritarian measures to hold onto power. So, the relationships are simbiotic.
There are few history lessons better than listening to people who actually lived it.
Pages