While the United States' interventionism in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam has been disputed pretty openly between people, most people I know believe that - whether or not Japan attacked us and were sided with Germany - we should have intervened in the domestic affairs of Nazi Germany because of the ongoing Holocaust. It's quite hard to think that we should have done nothing in my mind, although I am against non-interventionism for the most part. Can anyone make non-interventionism during WWII sound more legitimate than I possibly can so that no one says to me, "You would have just let everyone die?"
Also, if any actions were to be taken by the government when it comes to interventionism in general, what do you think would be the best way of doing things as opposed to sending in troops and setting up military bases? The only thing I can think of is dropping machine guns (or any other type of gun) near the 'safe' civilian locations so that they can fight back on their own.
I tend to see it this way: If the U.S. didn't intervene in WW1, there would have been no Treaty of Versailles (or as bad), and thus no Nazi's. Probably no Bolshevik's either.
Brian:most people I know believe that - whether or not Japan attacked us and were sided with Germany - we should have intervened in the domestic affairs of Nazi Germany because of the ongoing Holocaust.
The holocaust had nothing to do with why America entered the war. The holocaust as moral imperative for WWII is a post-ww2 narrative.
Brian:It's quite hard to think that we should have done nothing
Who is we?
Brian:Can anyone make non-interventionism during WWII sound more legitimate than I possibly can so that no one says to me, "You would have just let everyone die?"
Ask yourself if non-interventionism equates to that. If it doesn't, don't worry about what other people say. If it does, then your friends have a moral imperative (by their own argument) to intervene in every conflict in the world, and to accept foreign interventions into American domestic conflicts like the civil war and genocide of the plains indians.
It is very hard to talk to many Americans about war. A lot of work has been done to propogandize all American aggression as necessary and righteous. I'm reminded of this every time someone defends the use of nukes on Japan.
Wars are not like weather, they don't just "happen." The European wars of the early 20th century were only superficially different from other wars. Despite being among the first examples of total war in human history, these wars were still power-struggles between the European elites for control over Europe and its colonies. The tendency to focus on Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and other populist leaders is a mistake since it discounts the other 90% of power that lies below the surface. It's superficial history, just like the Biblical accounts of the actions of the Israelite kings. "Such and such king tore down the high places to please God." No, he did it to please the priests at the temple in Jerusalem. Ideology has always been part of war and the ideological nature of the wars of the early 20th century was only different in degree, not in kind.
I don't yet understand European politics of that time (and before and since) well enough to formulate a cohesive competing theory of these wars but I am planning to start by understanding the fall of monarchy, which is a lot more complicated than what you learned in high school history. The high school history books make it out like everybody suddenly "woke up" during the Enlightenment and realized that monarchy is insane and that was the end of it. This is far from the truth and is based on a serious misunderstanding of the actual nature of European monarchy. The European monarchies are actually a group of Royal Houses, some of which have ended, others which still survive, which have ruled over the various regions of Europe as sovereigns at one time or another. Some monarchs still retain formal authority, as in Britain, Spain, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, etc. And even in the countries where there is no monarch with formal authority, the royal families still retain considerable influence in politics. And the blood of Royal Houses which currently hold no throne is still in power - that is, someone from that house is married to someone of another house who is sitting on a throne. The British crown is, in fact, a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which had been changed in Britain only to "Windsor" in 1917 as a result of anti-German nationalist sentiment. Elizabeth will be the last British royal of this house, her son Charles and his sons William and Harry are, in fact, members of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (yeehaw!), the change-over being the result of the fact that Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh - Elizabeth's consort and Charles's father - is a member of this house.
In other words, royalty is a lot more durable than modern scholarship gives them credit for. And perhaps they prefer it that way.
Wow, I really got off on a tangent. My point was that, since wars don't just "happen", we shouldn't think of them like natural disasters like a hurricane where we're doing a service to humanity to dispatch resources to those who have been hit by it. It's a shame that the masses are so easily duped into fighting wars on behalf of their betters but there's nothing that whipping up the masses here to go fight a war on behalf of our betters can do to solve the problem.
Clayton -
Can anyone make non-interventionism during WWII sound more legitimate than I possibly can so that no one says to me, "You would have just let everyone die?"
Yes. Hitler was wrong to intervene in Czecho-slovakia.
The holocaust had nothing to do with why America entered the war.
I understand that. But it's kind of like the War in Iraq how people are now saying that we had to go to save the citizens from Saddam even though entering the war had nothing to do with that. People argue to me that we should have done something no matter what in order to stop the Holocaust from going further. That's why I said to ignore the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the Axis-Allies idea.
Feel free to replace it with 'the then-government' or anything like that. I'm just used to saying 'we' still.
and to accept foreign interventions into American domestic conflicts like the civil war and genocide of the plains indians.
That is something I haven't thought about doing yet. I never thought about bring it back to home and asking if they would have liked Germany to intervene during one of those times. Thank you for the idea.
We should have intervened in the domestic affairs of Nazi Germany because of the ongoing Holocaust.
I probably shouldn't open my mouth, but what evidence did we have before and during the war of any holocaust? As far as I know during WWII we had no knowledge of anything like that. It wasn't til after the war that such "evidence" surfaced.
It's superficial history, just like the Biblical accounts of the actions of the Israelite kings. "Such and such king tore down the high places to please God." No, he did it to please the priests at the temple in Jerusalem.
I don't mean to nitpick or anything, but that begs the question against Judaism. I liked the rest of your post, though.
It wasn't til after the war that such "evidence" surfaced.
Haha, read the post I just made above yours. I don't think we had any evidence, but everyone who argues with me insists that we should have gone to end the Holocaust no matter what, and additionally assuming that we knew what was even going on. I've heard a lot of things regarding Stalin and FDR and their desires to start the war. I'm just slowly getting into Viktor Surovov's book Icebreaker, so hopefully it will be informative. I realize how corporatist the New Deal was, but are there any quotations of FDR supporting communism? I feel like his 90% tax rates show a lot, but I'm just curious.
I don't think we had any evidence, but everyone who argues with me insists that we should have gone to end the Holocaust no matter what, and additionally assuming that we knew what was even going on.
No one knew, because it probably didn't really happen. I'm very skeptical about the holocaust. Even in a school history class they discussed that there was no talk or anything of a "holocaust", and the term wasn't coined til after the war. As far as we knew they were engaging in policies to remove populations of Jewish people outside of Germany.
I'm very skeptical about the holocaust.
What about how many accounts there are by people like Elie Wiesel and so on?
Just on a side note, here is a video that you might be interested in while we're on the subject of Hitler/WWII. Not too much to do with the Holocaust per se, but Hitler mentions his reasons for the war. I think the video says something about the New York Times drafting an incorrect translation of his declaration of war when he made it, but I can't remember since I haven't seen the video in a while.
I'll take a look at the video later. Have you ever read Did Six Million Really Die?. I'm sure there are better, more scholarly works on the subject, but it's pretty interesting.
I haven't read that yet. I have a few books I've been meaning to read, but I'll put it on my to-read list. Anyone else who's reading this thread, there's a PDF of the book here.
Not necessarily. It is possible to belong to an Abrahamic religion while questioning the objectivity of the authors of the Hebrew Bible (and other religious texts). Probably the best book I've read on this subject is Steven McKenzie's King David: A Biography. He paints a pretty unflattering picture of King David but the real value of McKenzie's book, to me, was not so much for understanding David as understanding the authors of the chronicles of the ancient Israelite kings and the nature of the motivated historical revisionism of court recorders. A critical reading of the Biblical accounts of the kings of Israel leaves one of two possibilities - either the kings of Israel and other important persons of that time were unlike ordinary human beings in almost every conceivable way or the authors of the court histories of the kings of Israel were not objective and even, in some cases, downright dishonest. I think the second possibility is far more likely.
Bert ~ I'll be more interested in reading this subject from an author who isn't part of the BNP.
I am curious how you'll respond to all the various testomany of the people who witnessed their family and friends die in concentration camps. The bones found, accounts of various people ... I am assuming this was all made-up?
And the photographs.
Would you not read a book on communism written by a communist, or a book on Keynesian economics written by a Keynesian?
You must not make hasty accusations. The Jewish people were given chance to leave Germany. Those who remained were put into labor camps that are now called "concentration camps". It's counter-productive to exterminate your work force. The chambers they had were cremation chambers for those who died. I'm not denying anyone died. It's how they died and in what circumstances. As far as testomonies go that can go on and on. I can only suggest reading over that book (it's really short) and then making a judgment.
Is your avatar a picture of Stauffenberg?
Brian: and to accept foreign interventions into American domestic conflicts like the civil war and genocide of the plains indians. That is something I haven't thought about doing yet. I never thought about bring it back to home and asking if they would have liked Germany to intervene during one of those times. Thank you for the idea.
Learning how to reverse an argument is very effective. The issue with this sort of logical inquiry is that people generally react very badly to having their contradictions exposed, so if you're going to play that card, understand it might kill the conversation.
Learning how to reverse an argument is very effective.
Do you have any book recommendations that teach you how to argue more efficiently (i.e. techniques like reversal, etc.), or is it just something you pick up as you debate with people more and more often?
Bert,
It's not counter-productive to exterminate your workforce if your primary goal is to exterminate your workforce.
I'd much rather listen to the testimony of people who were there and saw over the revisionist history of neo-Nazis.
Jews and many others outside of Europe were aware of the Holocaust. Not the details and the degree obviously, but they knew well that the Nazis were doing terrible things to the European Jewish population--that's why American Jews agitated for war with Germany and enlisted in such disproportionate numbers.
You should really read something on the subject by someone other than a neo-Nazi. Find your local synagogue or JCC and talk to an educated man on the topic. And stay away from those Neo-Nazis.
Skimming through the pamphlet, it's pretty ridiculous. It's neo-Nazi propaganda, nothing more.
Looks like we have a Holocaust denier, er, I mean someone who is just 'asking questions' and searching for 'the truth'. My grandfather actually liberated Dachau and the things he saw scarred him for life. He only told one person about what he saw (my grandmother, who eventually told my mother when he passed on which is how I found out the specifics) and apparently when he did he was in tears. Anyway, the point is that other than the massive amounts of evidence that corroborate that the Holocaust did happen (on the scale that it happened) that I personally knew someone that saw it first hand.
I've always done that. Debating helped me sharpen it. The best advice I can give to someone who wants to be better at debate is to know your subject matter well and know when you're talking to a brick wall.
justinx0r:Looks like we have a Holocaust denier
It has been my experience that shame words are indicative of a weak argument.
liberty student:It has been my experience that shame words are indicative of a weak argument.
His argument was two sentences after, what you call, a "shame word" ...
Brian:While the United States' interventionism in Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam has been disputed pretty openly between people, most people I know believe that - whether or not Japan attacked us and were sided with Germany - we should have intervened in the domestic affairs of Nazi Germany because of the ongoing Holocaust. It's quite hard to think that we should have done nothing in my mind, although I am against non-interventionism for the most part. Can anyone make non-interventionism during WWII sound more legitimate than I possibly can so that no one says to me, "You would have just let everyone die?"
Fluke: liberty student:It has been my experience that shame words are indicative of a weak argument. His argument was two sentences after, what you call, a "shame word" ...
It is a shame word. Bert started off saying he was skeptical. He also shared his source and invited more information. That's an opportunity to enlighten someone, not to go after their character or paint them with a broad brush.
People get fanatical about Jews, Israel and the Holocaust, and all it serves to do is polarize everyone even more. I'm particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech, and many in the libertarian movement have been unfairly accused of being anti-semitic.
If you want to correct the narrative about the holocaust, there are better ways of doing it. Shame words don't open up minds to new ideas or different perspectives.
Fluke:As it happens, I do think that the war in Iraq was, not only necessary, but long overdue. I believe in an interventionalist policy where by dictators and tyrannts are simply not allowed to get away with crimes simply because they are on the other side of a man-made fence.
Assuming you're serious, how did killing 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many of them children, punish Saddam for his crimes?
I'm particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech
Where?
And I agree with you btw that we should hear the other persons opinions before making a conclusion.
liberty student:It is a shame word. Bert started off saying he was skeptical. He also shared his source and invited more information. That's an opportunity to enlighten someone, not to go after their character or paint them with a broad brush. People get fanatical about Jews, Israel and the Holocaust, and all it serves to do is polarize everyone even more. I'm particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech, and many in the libertarian movement have been unfairly accused of being anti-semitic. If you want to correct the narrative about the holocaust, there are better ways of doing it. Shame words don't open up minds to new ideas or different perspectives.
liberty student:Assuming you're serious, how did killing 100s of thousands of Iraqi civilians, many of them children, punish Saddam for his crimes?
pentahedron:And I agree with you btw that we should hear the other persons opinions before making a conclusion.
Fluke:But I was just pointing out that the user's argument was actually there, but you omitted it and simply referred to a single sentence - which in isolation, gives the impression of having no merit. That is all.
I never questioned his argument. His argument was the best part of his post. My issue was with the namecalling. I don't think it served his grandfather's story well.
Fluke:The Iraq War was one of the shortest wars the UK was involved in.
Irrelevant.
Fluke:It took around two weeks to find Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice. Much of the killings of Iraqi civilians, were committed by Sunni and Shia Muslims - bombing each other etc ...
No, most of the killings were a result of the invasion, or the UN sanctions in the 90s.
Fluke:I do think there were problems, that may have been overlooked, in the Iraq War.
Yes, mass murder and property destruction are pretty big problems.
Fluke:But, if you ask me if it was right, to go to war against Saddam Hussein and bring him justice. Then absolutely!
Did you enlist to fight in the war?
Fluke:Moreover, the problems of the Iraq war (and indeed the war itself) is completely down to him and how he treated the UN, UNMOVIC and the international community on a very important issue.
So the UK has no moral responsiblity for invading a country that has not attacked it?
Are you a libertarian?
pentahedron:I'm particularly sensitive of this, because holocaust denial has been used as an excuse by the state to silence free speech Where?
Soviet Canada.
Are you Canadian?I ask simply because I thought you were referring to the US. I know Canada is less lax on hate speech compared to the US. The most recent example being an Iman who got banned from the country for suggesting that the government adopt a policy of homosexual genocide.
liberty student: Fluke:The Iraq War was one of the shortest wars the UK was involved in. Irrelevant.
liberty student: Fluke:It took around two weeks to find Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice. Much of the killings of Iraqi civilians, were committed by Sunni and Shia Muslims - bombing each other etc ... No, most of the killings were a result of the invasion, or the UN sanctions in the 90s.
liberty student: Fluke:I do think there were problems, that may have been overlooked, in the Iraq War. Yes, mass murder and property destruction are pretty big problems.
liberty student: Fluke:But, if you ask me if it was right, to go to war against Saddam Hussein and bring him justice. Then absolutely! Did you enlist to fight in the war?
liberty student: Fluke:Moreover, the problems of the Iraq war (and indeed the war itself) is completely down to him and how he treated the UN, UNMOVIC and the international community on a very important issue. So the UK has no moral responsibility for invading a country that has not attacked it? Are you a libertarian?
In an anarcho-capitalist society, assume Person A is being attacked by Person B with a gun yet Person A has no gun to protect himself/herself. Does Person C (who has a gun) have the right to defend Person A against Person B for a cost assuming that Person A allows it? Would that count as a service transaction or is that frowned upon considering Person B never attacked Person C?
The most recent example being an Iman who got banned from the country for suggesting that the government adopt a policy of homosexual genocide
I hope one day to get banned from every country on Earth. I wonder where they would send me. I hope the moon.
Fluke:I don't understand why you think one of the most important points I made is "irrelevant".
The justness of the war is not determined by its length.
Fluke:The Iraq War's mission was to deal with Saddam Hussein and bring him to justice.
No it wasn't. That is what it became. You don't invade with 10s of thousands of troops and billions in hardware to collect one man against whom no court had convicted.
Fluke: liberty student: Fluke:The Iraq War was one of the shortest wars the UK was involved in. Irrelevant.We managed to do this extremely (relatively) quickly, and thus minimised the potential extra loss of life.
How many lives were lost? How much was minimized?
Fluke:What are you talking about? The Iraq War of 2003?
Do you not know the history of the war going back 13 years previous?
Fluke:What mass murder?
Fallujah?
Fluke:Property destruction was the inevitable consequence that Saddam knew was going to happen if he continued to ignore, and work against the United Nations, the international community on an extremely important issue.
So if David Cameron ignored the UN, then it would be ok to bomb your house and family?
Fluke:I think you're missing the real problem here. Namely, the fact that a tyrant was suspected of having WMDs, was given many opportunities to work with the UN on this, refused to do so, lied to them on many occasions, moved around weapons and was caught doing so, and what are you expecting the UK to do amidst all of this? Lol? Pretend he wasn't a threat? Hope nothing will happen? Get real!
And yet he had no weapons. So what was his crime? What did the UN charge him with? What conviction was made before the invasion?
The weapons inspectors couldn't find the weapons BECAUSE THERE WERE NONE. It's hard for an innocent man to prove his innocence, which is why the standard for conviction is proof of guilt from the accuser, not proof of innocence by the accused.
Fluke: liberty student:Did you enlist to fight in the war? I was a young 14 year old then. But a nice cheap ad hom attack nonetheless, especially since you were criticising someone else's debating style!
liberty student:Did you enlist to fight in the war?
It was not an ad hom. I was inquiring as to the strength of your convictions and to confirm something which consistently seems to be true. It's always politicians and non-military who like to talk about the moral righteousness of war. Soldiers have usually seen too much to feel very good about the things they are asked to do.
Fluke:If there was a person getting beaten-up down the road, I would do something to help him. If I could, I'd phone the police, or even help him fight the bully. Zoom out, and this is how I would operate on the international scene. If some tyrant is mass killing his own people, I would intervene. I find the position whereby "oh, but he isn't doing anything to me" to be nothing short of morally dysfunctional. So, yes, the UK did have a moral responsibility to intervene (and a legal one!).
Did you read my response to Brian up thread, about how this moral position necessitates that you intervene (particularly now that you are old enough to hold a weapon) against every unjust regime in the world?
Fluke:In any case, this is sidetracking the thread? Is it not?
You're right, I am sorry for bringing up Iraq. Oh wait, I didn't.
I'm posting this because it may be instructive to Brian, and that was what he was looking for. A better way to handle these debates. You're an interventionist, and I am not. It is ideal for that purpose.
As far as being morally dysfunctional, wouldn't you say the loss of life to retrieve Saddam, which far outweighed the bad he did in the world, isn't more dysfunctional? If not, is there any cost in property or innocent life which you think would be too high to deal with a dictator? Is capturing Saddam worth the loss of one innocent person? 10? 1,000? 1,000,000?
Do you believe in an interventionist policy whereby the United States supports dictators and tyrants?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
pentahedron:Are you Canadian?
Yes.
pentahedron:I ask simply because I thought you were referring to the US.
Americans almost always assume the conversation is about America. =D
pentahedron:I know Canada is less lax on hate speech compared to the US.
Free speech. Not hate speech. It is free speech which they abhor. They love to promote hateful speech when it serves the aims of the state and its supporters.
Glad I'm not the only one around here who has to put up with 'Soviet Canada'.
More taxes and more stimulus will get us out this recession, am I right?