You have embraced a number of outright fabrications in this thread, including the claim that I’d cited neo-Nazi sources, the claim that I’d denied the Holocaust, and now the claim that there was no Allied food blockade during WWII.
Germany imposed a food blockade on England, Poland, Ukraine, Greece, Holland, and may others. Do you think any nation will just let her enemies receive food shipments during wartime?
Your attempt to lighten the nastiness and deceptiveness of your posts by making jokes about Goering’s corpulence has fallen flat.
But since he didn’t lose weight, doesn’t that mean he had enough food?
Even though I’ve provided rock solid sources to prove there was such a blockade.
You provided nothing to support your claims. The Allies did what they have been doing since Napoleonic times… Economic blockade. If anything Germany tried to blockade England by her U-boat campaign.
Anyone with the strength, courage, and intellectual integrity necessary to make the right choice is a person well worth knowing. I’m sure there are also plenty of people worth knowing whom you and others like you have misled. But that isn’t the point. The point is that if one could gather a group of people who reject every word you and others like you have ever written, you’d have a very good group of people! Smart, not easily deceived, intellectually honest, strong, altruistic.
Their is no “courage” in being misguided by bogus facts. And especially how you never acknowledge the Nazi’s as doing anything wrong. I have never seen any post from you that focus on Nazi atrocities, while when that topic is taken by another member, you go into this soapbox rant about how bad the Allies were worse, typically making Churchill look like the devil. Churchill had real courage during the war, while the Nazi’s were punk cowards who just made up garbage lies to cover up crimes against humanity. Then you make up this nonsense of how Hitler the good guy needed to murder tens of millions to save “starving Germans” you are so disingenuous to a fault, you might as well put your head in the sand and pull out a white flag. The exact methods of counterpoint and propaganda are the ones that the Nazis used as arguments. In each case, you subscribe to the same lies the Nazis used to cover up horrific acts of violence.
Germany started the war in the first place, so if they were starving don’t you think its their own fault for continuing the war when they could just surrender before Europe is destroyed and everyone is starved to death? Germany created the problem from the get go, then you defend them for how the Allies responded knowing fully well that Hitler was making this lie about “oh poor us we are starving” as the excuse for extermination against many groups under Nazi control?
How do you buy hook, line, and sinker all Nazi propaganda during the war Kurt? Everything you say in this manner is the exact things Germany made as propaganda slogans.
Every view you have is basically the wrong one. All the resources you cite were ones that you found that confirm ridiculous outcomes and conclusions. So essentially, you just found books
( bought and read) that follow that reasoning. In reality, those books were written to sell fringe ideas so people will buy them since the truth is boring these days, people favor controversial ideas to excite reading the obvious truths. Thats why today you see alot of these " If Hitler would have defeated Stalin Europe would be like this" types of books. People love the “what if factor”.
@Imperious:
You provided nothing to support your claims.
Of the lies you told in your post, I’ll focus on the one quoted above. I’ve made two claims relevant to this discussion: 1) That Churchill imposed a food blockade on Germany, and 2) That this food blockade caused massive starvation in German-held territory during WWII.
I’ve cited three sources in support of the first claim: a book written by a former U.S. president, a book written by an award-winning historian, and a Wikipedia article containing 87 references. The latter two sources also support my second claim. But time and again, you conveniently ignore or misrepresent facts you don’t like, or that don’t fit your chosen narrative. You are not responding to what I’m saying. You are testing the waters to see how much distortion you can get away with before people other than me start calling you out.
Below is a quote from p. 541 of Tooze’s work Wages of Destruction.
Backe was in an impossible position. The Fuehrer had demanded more workers. Gauleiter Sauckel was dedicated to delivering them. Hitler and Sauckel now demanded that the workers [mostly Soviet POWs] be fed, which was clearly a necessity if they were to be productive. And yet, given the level of grain stocks, Backe was unable to meet this demand. What was called for was a reduction in consumption, not additional provisions for millions of new workers. The seriousness of the situation became apparent in the spring of 1942 when the Food Ministry announced cuts to the food rations of the German population.
Below is a quote from p. 541 of Tooze’s work Wages of Destruction.
Backe was in an impossible position. The Fuehrer had demanded more workers. Gauleiter Sauckel was dedicated to delivering them. Hitler and Sauckel now demanded that the workers [mostly Soviet POWs] be fed, which was clearly a necessity if they were to be productive. And yet, given the level of grain stocks, Backe was unable to meet this demand. What was called for was a reduction in consumption, not additional provisions for millions of new workers. The seriousness of the situation became apparent in the spring of 1942 when the Food Ministry announced cuts to the food rations of the German population.
This is not a source. The same thing was going on in England et al , except they are talking about normal citizens working in factories as opposed to forced and or slave labor. The same message was probably discussed in 1940, 1941 by British leadership to induce more rationing since Germany was sinking vast amounts of shipping. The discussion in Germany’s case is “how to keep feeding slave labor enough food so they don’t die” It has nothing to do with the German people, except they are being rationed ( like in every Allied and Axis country) so that all these slaves can continue to work without dying. The entire problem that Tooze points out is among other things, Hitler and National Socialism tried to set up Germany preparation for war by “will and technology” and not realizing that globalization was a main ingredient to sustaining an economy. Hitler was never prepared for war and the “Speer Miracle” is bogus. In reality, Germany suffered or would have suffered in any war because they relied on military answers rather than proofing economic ones. Hitler didn’t want women to work in factories ( they were expected to raise families) and men were serving in the military. Leaving only forced and slave labor to produce ( and obviously normal production would be depressed from this labor). So in the end, the effects that Germany suffered were not from Churchill, but a direct result of the failed preparation of Germany for general war. The “Victory on the cheap” was Hitlers only solution and success related to vanquishing smaller nations, then ran into huge logistical problems when trying to conquer nations with larger populations and greater propensity to ramp up economy during wartime and failed…it was their own fault. Funny how you didn’t get this from Tooze, which is his main point. I guess its true that you only read what you want too.
Adam Tooze’s controversial new book challenges the conventional economic interpretations of that period to explore how Hitler’s surprisingly prescient vision- ultimately hindered by Germany’s limited resources and his own racial ideology-was to create a German super-state to dominate Europe and compete with what he saw as America’s overwhelming power in a soon-to- be globalized world. The Wages of Destruction is a chilling work of originality and tremendous scholarship that is already setting off debate in Germany and will fundamentally change the way in which history views the Second World War.
This is how they characterize his book because it sells more copies to have a radical idea. He is not mainstream and he only presents a theory.
Even this Tooze sums up that Germany was attempting to win “war on the cheap” with limited resources even prewar and nothing is really in his book that " Germany had all these food shortages caused entirely by the Allies", rather Germany compounded her problems with each new country she invaded. Thats Germany’s fault, not the Allies who responded whatever way they could. This is how your argument fails entirely. He further says Germany didn’t have the infrastructure or was prepared for war, and since England didn’t surrender in 1940, Hitler was forced out of economic necessity to attack the Soviets. Hitler caused all his own problems by starting a war he could not finish because he was not ready economically for war. Thats the gist of that book.
Wow!
Sorry I’ve been away from this discussion! I’ve been on summer vacation for several weeks.
So, I’m not really sure what arguments are being made on a theoretical level.
Kurt, you’re saying the UK put in place a food blockade? Yes, and…? That’s war.
You are basically arguing that the Allies were hypocrites. They condemned Nazi Germany for “human rights violations” and yet committed them themselves.
Well, yes an no. What’s a “human rights violation” and when was it declared such?
You are engaging in a basic logical/historical fallacy liberals always engage in which is: liberal democracy that respects human rights has always been achievable and thus the baseline on which all historical-national actions must be judged.
That is a load of nonsense. Reality/history is the absolute opposite: violence, meaningful or arbitrary, against the weak to dominate or exploit them is the real rule of humanity. It has only been by the extraordinary striving of counties like the US and UK that even a semblance of “international law/human rights” has gained ground, even if superficially. There’s no absolute truth or requirement for the respect of “human rights” when its violation has been the historical norm. There is no thing as some “natural state” of human rights.
The reality is that few people really care about that stuff. And if push comes to shove, it’s all out the window. If you are a nation that strives to achieve the “rule of law” domestically and internationally and are confronted with an external power that absolutely doesn’t care, what are you going to do? You’re seriously not going to blockade them? You’re seriously not going to bomb their cities–the center of that nation’s power? What if you lose? Then all that high minded shitt is out the window. No one cares.
Come on Bro… that’s just dumb. You’re inviting victory-- against yourself! :-P
The highest best possible position is to say: we believe individuals have rights, but when a group of individuals collectively or individually act otherwise, they will be dealt with by all means NECESSARY. That’s it.
An by necessary, forget this “proportionality” nonsense. The “necessary” aspect is determined and judged by the power that conducts the act.
That is all.
Debate closed.
Thank you for coming.
Whats even more ridiculous is he uses references to support his point, but if you read further those same references argue against his points!
Its too funny.
Wow!
Sorry I’ve been away from this discussion! I’ve been on summer vacation for several weeks.
So, I’m not really sure what arguments are being made on a theoretical level.
Kurt, you’re saying the UK put in place a food blockade? Yes, and…? That’s war.
You are basically arguing that the Allies were hypocrites. They condemned Nazi Germany for “human rights violations” and yet committed them themselves.
Well, yes an no. What’s a “human rights violation” and when was it declared such?
You are engaging in a basic logical/historical fallacy liberals always engage in which is: liberal democracy that respects human rights has always been achievable and thus the baseline on which all historical-national actions must be judged.
That is a load of nonsense. Reality/history is the absolute opposite: violence, meaningful or arbitrary, against the weak to dominate or exploit them is the real rule of humanity. It has only been by the extraordinary striving of counties like the US and UK that even a semblance of “international law/human rights” has gained ground, even if superficially. There’s no absolute truth or requirement for the respect of “human rights” when its violation has been the historical norm. There is no thing as some “natural state” of human rights.
The reality is that few people really care about that stuff. And if push comes to shove, it’s all out the window. If you are a nation that strives to achieve the “rule of law” domestically and internationally and are confronted with an external power that absolutely doesn’t care, what are you going to do? You’re seriously not going to blockade them? You’re seriously not going to bomb their cities–the center of that nation’s power? What if you lose? Then all that high minded shitt is out the window. No one cares.
Come on Bro… that’s just dumb. You’re inviting victory-- against yourself! :-P
The highest best possible position is to say: we believe individuals have rights, but when a group of individuals collectively or individually act otherwise, they will be dealt with by all means NECESSARY. That’s it.
An by necessary, forget this “proportionality” nonsense. The “necessary” aspect is determined and judged by the power that conducts the act.
That is all.
Debate closed.
Thank you for coming.
The ruling class of any Western nation consists of two categories of people: politicians and plutocrats. Plutocrats are those at the very top of the economic pyramid. They are the ones with the money to buy media corporations, to make large contributions to political campaigns, to pressure universities through their alumni donations, etc. Of the two categories of ruling class people, plutocrats exert more power than politicians.
The actions of the Western nations’ ruling class bear no relationship at all to the values they claim to have. This goes well beyond mere hypocrisy. They are demonstrating every bit as much malignant intent as you’d expect from a hostile foreign occupier. In some cases, more malignant intent!
To give some specific examples: in recent times, the ruling class made it so that declaring bankruptcy no longer protects you from student loan debt. Lenders responded by greatly increasing their willingness to lend. The more money lenders were willing to provide, the more colleges raised their tuition in response. In modern America college has become a money grab–an act of financial predation against the middle class. College degrees are often economically worthless, and graduates labor under a crushing pile of student debt. Few members of the ruling class have shown interest in reforming this broken system. On the other hand, that same ruling class spent over $2 trillion on bailouts to themselves–TARP money, funded by the taxpayers, that went toward further enriching the rich. The near-complete absence of benign intent among members of the ruling class is seen in nearly all aspects of Washington lawmaking: the Omnibus spending bill, the law allowing robocalling to cell phones, immigration policy, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.
The ruling class was every bit as divorced from benign intent during the '30s and '40s as it is today. In 1932 - '33, Stalin used an artificial famine to murder 7 million innocent Ukrainians, including 3 million children. The New York Times helped whitewash that crime by denying a famine occurred. FDR did the same, and extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union within a year of the completion of that famine. Within three years of the conclusion of that famine, France and Czechoslovakia had signed defensive alliances with the Soviet Union.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France responded by declaring war on Nazi Germany. They did not, however, declare war on the Soviet Union, even though the U.S.S.R. gobbled up the eastern half of Poland in 1939. And even though eastern Poland would lose 10% of its population during 1939 - ‘41 due to Soviet death squads and deportations. Western nations’ ruling class did, however, impose a food blockade on all of German-held Europe. No humanitarian aid was allowed through that blockade. The result was that millions of Poles (and tens of millions of others) died of starvation. Due to Allied victory, all of Poland was ultimately subject to hostile Soviet foreign occupation.
People of Polish descent have every reason to regard the Western ruling class as malignant, because that ruling class’s blockade starved millions of Poles. (While also demonstrating the falsehood of that ruling class’s claims to want to “help” the Polish.) Germans had every reason to distrust the Western ruling class, because of the starvation that ruling class deliberately created in postwar Germany.
But can people in Western nations trust our own ruling classes? The simple answer is that we cannot. The ruling class in almost any Western nation pursues a malignant “divide and rule” strategy against its own nation. The basic game plan is simple. Open the floodgates to immigration, in order to make the population as heterogeneous as possible. That way the nation’s people become divided against themselves. If that alone isn’t enough to divide a nation, stir up animosity amongst the people through race baiting and other means. Get the people so busy opposing each other that they’ll fail to notice (or at least, fail to adequately oppose) the iron grip on power held by the ruling class. The fact this “divide and rule” strategy is an excellent way of converting First World nations into Third World nations is, for the ruling class, beside the point. The ruling classes of Western nations do not have benign intent toward the nations they rule, and are quite content to see First World nations turn into Third World nations. Just as, decades earlier, they’d contentedly watched Stalin murder tens of millions of innocent people, while themselves helping Stalin get his hands on additional millions he’d wanted to kill.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France responded by declaring war on Nazi Germany. They did not, however, declare war on the Soviet Union, even though the U.S.S.R. gobbled up the eastern half of Poland in 1939. And even though eastern Poland would lose 10% of its population during 1939 - '41 due to Soviet death squads and deportations.
Typical kurt…
Forgot to mention that most of the Polish people were killed by Germany…then goes to make the Soviets the scapegoat again to make Hitler look “better”
The official Polish government report on war damages prepared in 1947 put Poland’s war dead at 6,028,000; 3.0 million ethnic Poles and 3.0 million Jews not including losses of Polish citizens from the Ukrainian and Belarusian ethnic groups.
Nazi crimes against the Polish nation claimed the lives of 2.77 million Christian Poles,[1] and 2.7 to 2.9 million Polish Jews, according to estimates of the Polish government-affiliated Institute of National Remembrance
So taking the lower estimate, Germany killed 5.47 million, leaving a balance of 558,000 dead by the Soviets. Good job with the facts Kurt. I guess these numbers are also from Hoover?
When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France responded by declaring war on Nazi Germany. They did not, however, declare war on the Soviet Union, even though the U.S.S.R. gobbled up the eastern half of Poland in 1939.
And again in this sentence you make somehow France and England look somehow worse by not DOW against Soviet Union, knowing fully well they had a defensive alliance with them and not acknowledging the greater crime of Hitler starting a world war. Nice job Kurt!
People of Polish descent have every reason to regard the Western ruling class as malignant, because that ruling class’s blockade starved millions of Poles.
Are you again ignoring what Tooze says in Wages of Destruction Kurt? He said Hitler didn’t prepare for war and wasn’t ready for war and easily suffered the effects of war, when it could have been saved any chance of “bogus starvation” claims. It’s Hitlers fault that anybody starved because he didn’t prepare for war. So don’t blame the allies, it was obvious that they weren’t going to let any ship in a German port to deliver anything if any war occurred…Everybody knows this so just blame German leadership.
Germans had every reason to distrust the Western ruling class, because of the starvation that ruling class deliberately created in postwar Germany.
Right. Germany should have never started a world war knowing the potential for this after they lost. Blame Germany for that too.
But can people in Western nations trust our own ruling classes? The simple answer is that we cannot. The ruling class in almost any Western nation pursues a malignant “divide and rule” strategy against its own nation. The basic game plan is simple. Open the floodgates to immigration, in order to make the population as heterogeneous as possible. That way the nation’s people become divided against themselves. If that alone isn’t enough to divide a nation, stir up animosity amongst the people through race baiting and other means. Get the people so busy opposing each other that they’ll fail to notice (or at least, fail to adequately oppose) the iron grip on power held by the ruling class. The fact this “divide and rule” strategy is an excellent way of converting First World nations into Third World nations is, for the ruling class, beside the point. The ruling classes of Western nations do not have benign intent toward the nations they rule, and are quite content to see First World nations turn into Third World nations. Just as, decades earlier, they’d contentedly watched Stalin murder tens of millions of innocent people, while themselves helping Stalin get his hands on additional millions he’d wanted to kill.
Why are you always blaming Hitler and Germany for all these things? All you ever do is talk about how bad Germany was and how they schemed other races out of life. What does Hoover say about that? I know he had great Chicken recipes and failed as president, and was the preeminent authority on all History on how the Allies were the “Baddies”.
BTW Kurt, Hoover killed 130 people by starvation. They never got that Chicken recipe in the mail….
President Herbert Hoover declared, “Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been.” But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
He sounds kinda like you. He subscribes to the exact opposite of what is factual.
Wow!
Sorry I’ve been away from this discussion! I’ve been on summer vacation for several weeks.
So, I’m not really sure what arguments are being made on a theoretical level.
Kurt, you’re saying the UK put in place a food blockade? Yes, and…? That’s war.
You are basically arguing that the Allies were hypocrites. They condemned Nazi Germany for “human rights violations” and yet committed them themselves.
Well, yes an no. What’s a “human rights violation” and when was it declared such?
You are engaging in a basic logical/historical fallacy liberals always engage in which is: liberal democracy that respects human rights has always been achievable and thus the baseline on which all historical-national actions must be judged.
That is a load of nonsense. Reality/history is the absolute opposite: violence, meaningful or arbitrary, against the weak to dominate or exploit them is the real rule of humanity. It has only been by the extraordinary striving of counties like the US and UK that even a semblance of “international law/human rights” has gained ground, even if superficially. There’s no absolute truth or requirement for the respect of “human rights” when its violation has been the historical norm. There is no thing as some “natural state” of human rights.
The reality is that few people really care about that stuff. And if push comes to shove, it’s all out the window. If you are a nation that strives to achieve the “rule of law” domestically and internationally and are confronted with an external power that absolutely doesn’t care, what are you going to do? You’re seriously not going to blockade them? You’re seriously not going to bomb their cities–the center of that nation’s power? What if you lose? Then all that high minded shitt is out the window. No one cares.
Come on Bro… that’s just dumb. You’re inviting victory-- against yourself! :-P
The highest best possible position is to say: we believe individuals have rights, but when a group of individuals collectively or individually act otherwise, they will be dealt with by all means NECESSARY. That’s it.
An by necessary, forget this “proportionality” nonsense. The “necessary” aspect is determined and judged by the power that conducts the act.
That is all.
Debate closed.
Thank you for coming.
The ruling class of any Western nation consists of two categories of people: politicians and plutocrats. Plutocrats are those at the very top of the economic pyramid. They are the ones with the money to buy media corporations, to make large contributions to political campaigns, to pressure universities through their alumni donations, etc. Of the two categories of ruling class people, plutocrats exert more power than politicians.
The actions of the Western nations’ ruling class bear no relationship at all to the values they claim to have. This goes well beyond mere hypocrisy. They are demonstrating every bit as much malignant intent as you’d expect from a hostile foreign occupier. In some cases, more malignant intent!
To give some specific examples: in recent times, the ruling class made it so that declaring bankruptcy no longer protects you from student loan debt. Lenders responded by greatly increasing their willingness to lend. The more money lenders were willing to provide, the more colleges raised their tuition in response. In modern America college has become a money grab–an act of financial predation against the middle class. College degrees are often economically worthless, and graduates labor under a crushing pile of student debt. Few members of the ruling class have shown interest in reforming this broken system. On the other hand, that same ruling class spent over $2 trillion on bailouts to themselves–TARP money, funded by the taxpayers, that went toward further enriching the rich. The near-complete absence of benign intent among members of the ruling class is seen in nearly all aspects of Washington lawmaking: the Omnibus spending bill, the law allowing robocalling to cell phones, immigration policy, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, etc.
The ruling class was every bit as divorced from benign intent during the '30s and '40s as it is today. In 1932 - '33, Stalin used an artificial famine to murder 7 million innocent Ukrainians, including 3 million children. The New York Times helped whitewash that crime by denying a famine occurred. FDR did the same, and extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union within a year of the completion of that famine. Within three years of the conclusion of that famine, France and Czechoslovakia had signed defensive alliances with the Soviet Union.
When Hitler invaded Poland, Britain and France responded by declaring war on Nazi Germany. They did not, however, declare war on the Soviet Union, even though the U.S.S.R. gobbled up the eastern half of Poland in 1939. And even though eastern Poland would lose 10% of its population during 1939 - ‘41 due to Soviet death squads and deportations. Western nations’ ruling class did, however, impose a food blockade on all of German-held Europe. No humanitarian aid was allowed through that blockade. The result was that millions of Poles (and tens of millions of others) died of starvation. Due to Allied victory, all of Poland was ultimately subject to hostile Soviet foreign occupation.
People of Polish descent have every reason to regard the Western ruling class as malignant, because that ruling class’s blockade starved millions of Poles. (While also demonstrating the falsehood of that ruling class’s claims to want to “help” the Polish.) Germans had every reason to distrust the Western ruling class, because of the starvation that ruling class deliberately created in postwar Germany.
But can people in Western nations trust our own ruling classes? The simple answer is that we cannot. The ruling class in almost any Western nation pursues a malignant “divide and rule” strategy against its own nation. The basic game plan is simple. Open the floodgates to immigration, in order to make the population as heterogeneous as possible. That way the nation’s people become divided against themselves. If that alone isn’t enough to divide a nation, stir up animosity amongst the people through race baiting and other means. Get the people so busy opposing each other that they’ll fail to notice (or at least, fail to adequately oppose) the iron grip on power held by the ruling class. The fact this “divide and rule” strategy is an excellent way of converting First World nations into Third World nations is, for the ruling class, beside the point. The ruling classes of Western nations do not have benign intent toward the nations they rule, and are quite content to see First World nations turn into Third World nations. Just as, decades earlier, they’d contentedly watched Stalin murder tens of millions of innocent people, while themselves helping Stalin get his hands on additional millions he’d wanted to kill.
Interesting points, but not sure what this has to do with international warfare. I guess if you are saying war is all an “inside job” meant to sustain elites… well, that isn’t true by a long shot. The empires of central Europe were swept away by WWI. The Nazis were liquidated. The Japanese militarists were eliminated. The Soviet communist party (although its members changed hats) is gone. Etc… War is something beyond the “control” of the powerful, because at the end of the day the outcome of the war is determined by factors unrelated to the ruling class’s position within its own country. Elites may unleash war to secure their position, but that doesn’t mean they will inevitably win the war and survive.
Not to get personal, but I always laugh when people, especially liberals, get hyped up about the “conspiracy of the elites” nonsense. Yes, people with power can abuse it and get sweat heart, inside deals, but the reality–a reality confirmed by my 14 years practicing law and suing or defending such people or companies-- is that the elites are actually more often then not fairly incompetent. Many people in power are not there because of their diabolical intelligence or scheming, but because they “lasted” the longest. Indeed, I am not so afraid of the evil machinations of some international elite as by their actual stupidity. Just read “The Big Short” by Micheal Lewis. It tells the tale. Stupidity from top to bottom in such institutions as Goldman Sacks et al reigned, and they blew themselves up. Their only strategy at the end was to cry to the government. Not smart, or brilliant, just begging.
if you want to talk about US domestic politics and economics, I am game. But that would be another thread all together. Indeed, I think a thread that would be banned? :-P
I love it when people talk of “Ruling elites” pulling the strings behind the scenes and manipulating/controlling the world.
Sure… there are always influences, and tools of influence, but here’s the truth.
Look at any subsection of society, a work place, a family, a military unit, whatever and look at the social structure. Pick one that has TOTAL control of it’s circumstances. A Construction jobsite, sports team, or Military unit are prime examples.
Now go and look at the challenges that social structure has in just trying to achieve basic objectives - even though they have dedicated persons in TOTAL control of the organization. Mistakes still get made, discipline is never 100%, people have different perspectives and opinions, get-along/or-dont etc. The outcome is never certain on the micro scale.
The Macro scale is never certain either…
Interesting points, but not sure what this has to do with international warfare. I guess if you are saying war is all an “inside job” meant to sustain elites… well, that isn’t true by a long shot. The empires of central Europe were swept away by WWI. The Nazis were liquidated. The Japanese militarists were eliminated. The Soviet communist party (although its members changed hats) is gone. Etc… War is something beyond the “control” of the powerful, because at the end of the day the outcome of the war is determined by factors unrelated to the ruling class’s position within its own country. Elites may unleash war to secure their position, but that doesn’t mean they will inevitably win the war and survive.
Not to get personal, but I always laugh when people, especially liberals, get hyped up about the “conspiracy of the elites” nonsense. Yes, people with power can abuse it and get sweat heart, inside deals, but the reality–a reality confirmed by my 14 years practicing law and suing or defending such people or companies-- is that the elites are actually more often then not fairly incompetent. Many people in power are not there because of their diabolical intelligence or scheming, but because they “lasted” the longest. Indeed, I am not so afraid of the evil machinations of some international elite as by their actual stupidity. Just read “The Big Short” by Micheal Lewis. It tells the tale. Stupidity from top to bottom in such institutions as Goldman Sacks et al reigned, and they blew themselves up. Their only strategy at the end was to cry to the government. Not smart, or brilliant, just begging.
if you want to talk about US domestic politics and economics, I am game. But that would be another thread all together. Indeed, I think a thread that would be banned? :-P
The more familiar one becomes with the Establishment, the more it becomes clear that Establishment is actively hostile to the nations it rules. That’s as true in the U.S. as it is in Canada or the EU. The Establishment should be regarded as a hostile foreign occupier.
If media ownership is consolidated among a small number of companies, the Establishment will have virtually unlimited opportunities to lie to the people. Even in the Internet age, when people have access to non-Establishment media, there is still a strong tendency among the Establishment to use the mainstream media they do control to promote a fundamentally dishonest, malignant political agenda. Such tactics can be surprisingly effective, at least among those who get most of their news from Establishment-controlled sources.
Media consolidation was also an important theme in America’s past. During the first half of the 20th century, the typical pattern was for anti-war newspapers to get bought up by pro-war newspapers. We now know that the Establishment’s history of lying to the American people is not a new thing. Lies were used to get America involved in both world wars.
There is this idea that the world wars were fought to serve American interests. That, however, is not the case. They were fought to serve the Establishment’s best interests.
WWII represented a power grab by the Establishment. As a result of the Nazi defeat, the Establishment gained power over Western and part of Central Europe. Even more importantly (from the Establishment’s perspective), a potential alternative to Establishment rule was extinguished. During the first four years of Hitler’s rule, he greatly increased wages for German workers, expanded vacation time, transformed the German economy, improved work safety standards, implemented clean air and clean water measures, and ended the malnutrition/near starvation which had existed in the Weimar Republic. (And which was also a problem for the lower classes in other nations, such as Britain.) Later, the Nazis would implement a fairly successful anti-smoking program. The Establishment did not want their own, lackluster results compared against all that.
The Establishment could probably have achieved most of those things too, had its rule been benign. Instead, its typical policy has been to give the people just enough to create the illusion of benign rule, and no more than that. Creating the illusion of benign intent takes work, and recently the Establishment’s willingness to do that work appears to have waned. The Omnibus Spending Bill, the decision to flood Europe with migrants, and unlimited electronic surveillance against the people are all evidence that the Establishment is no longer all that interested in maintaining the illusion of benign intent.
During the first four years of Hitler’s rule, he greatly increased wages for German workers, expanded vacation time, transformed the German economy, improved work safety standards, implemented clean air and clean water measures, and ended the malnutrition/near starvation which had existed in the Weimar Republic. (And which was also a problem for the lower classes in other nations, such as Britain.) Later, the Nazis would implement a fairly successful anti-smoking program.
Credit for that particular non-smoking program, one of the many socially, economically and ecologically progressive measures for which the Nazi regime is widely admired, no doubt ultimately rests with Adolf Hitler, a non-smoker who prohibited smoking in his presence. He was a also vegetarian and a non-drinker, which is further evidence that he was passionately devoted to the promotion of healthy lifestyle habits.
@CWO:
Credit for that particular non-smoking program, one of the many socially, economically and ecologically progressive measures for which the Nazi regime is widely admired, no doubt ultimately rests with Adolf Hitler, a non-smoker who prohibited smoking in his presence. He was a also vegetarian and a non-drinker, which is further evidence that he was passionately devoted to the promotion of healthy lifestyle habits.
Born in Austria he was also a passionate mountain climber, and in his later days he build a cottage with view up in the Bergthesgaden mountains. When the Austrian climbers Heinrich Harrer and Heclmeier did the first ascend of Eiger Nordwand in 1934 he would invite them home for dinner just to show his admiration for real heroes. When he arranged the Olympic Games in 1938, no other national leader have ever showed that much enthusiasm as he did, he actually climbed on the chair, jumping up and down yelling RUN RUN RUN to the atleths passing by.
Compared to Churchill he was a saint. He never went to any bordello neither. Churchill on the other hand lived in bordellos instead of hotels when he travelled, he chain smoked as a train, and was always drunk, and would eat nothing but beefs. So basically we got this fat, smoking, drinking, beefeater bordello customer that believed in personal freedom and democracy, and his antagonist the slim, non smoking, non drinking vegetarian athlete with real high morale whos only wish was to enslave the world and subdue every man, except the Jews who he wanted to kill by gas.
Go figure
Some quotes by Winston Churchill:
“[Mahatma Gandhi] ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi, and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back.”
“I hate Indians . . . They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
Churchill’s blunt refusal to supply food to Bengal arguably led to the deaths of 3 million people.
British officials in the Indian region begged the Prime Minister to send aid to the Indian region, which was hit by wide-spread famine in 1943. Churchill said it was their own fault for ‘breeding like rabbits’. He said the plague was ‘merrily’ culling the population.
“This movement among the Jews is not new. . . . this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century.”
Born in Austria he was also a passionate mountain climber, and in his later days he build a cottage with view up in the Bergthesgaden mountains. When the Austrian climbers Heinrich Harrer and Heclmeier did the first ascend of Eiger Nordwand in 1934 he would invite them home for dinner just to show his admiration for real heroes. When he arranged the Olympic Games in 1938, no other national leader have ever showed that much enthusiasm as he did, he actually climbed on the chair, jumping up and down yelling RUN RUN RUN to the atleths passing by.
Compared to Churchill he was a saint. He never went to any bordello neither. Churchill on the other hand lived in bordellos instead of hotels when he travelled, he chain smoked as a train, and was always drunk, and would eat nothing but beefs. So basically we got this fat, smoking, drinking, beefeater bordello customer that believed in personal freedom and democracy, and his antagonist the slim, non smoking, non drinking vegetarian athlete with real high morale whos only wish was to enslave the world and subdue every man, except the Jews who he wanted to kill by gas.
Go figure
Indeed, the contrast between Churchill’s hedonism and Hitler’s austere lifestyle was noted by John Keegan in his book The Mask of Command. Keegan says that unlike Churchill, whose daily breakfasts of pheasant or partridge cheerfully exceeded the weekly wartime protein allwoance of British schoolchildren, Hitler spent the war living on bleak fare (such as mashed apples) in miserable surroundings (such as his isolated headquarters at Rastenburg, which was a pure military facility with no luxuries). It should also be noted that Hitler, sensitive and artistically-inclined man that he was, admired not just the well-proportioned physiques of Aryan men and women (as widely depicted in German visual arts of the time, though not quite so widely found in the Fuhrer’s immediate entourage, the devilishly handsome Reinhard Heidrich being a notable exception) but also had a keen eye for the beauties of the natural world, as expressed by a popular German song of the time (which can be heard in the documentary series The World at War) whose refrain roughly translates as “Adolf Hitler’s favourite flower is the delicate edelweiss.”
