Non-Interventionism in WWII

I hear talks of decentralizing healthcare some is on the table for you guys and IIRC correctly hasn't Canada changed their social security plan?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/856919--quebec-s-tea-party-is-born

More taxes and more stimulus will get us out this recession, am I right?

Hahaha. Actually made me laugh out loud. All I could hear was a smiling, excited politician saying that to a crowd and no one clapping.

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.

I see what you mean. If Saddam Hussein had launched an effort to intervene in the US and UK and bring to justice the filth of the Earth in the White House and on Downing Street I would have been tempted to enlist.

Sorry to burst your bubble. Outside your cocoon Western imperialism is less popular than Saddam Hussein. In that war 4/5ths of the world were rooting for the Iraqi army.

Looks like we have a Holocaust denier, er, I mean someone who is just 'asking questions' and searching for 'the truth'.

For the record, I'm not a holocaust denier, so keep your smear attacks to yourself.

I find it amusing that you clump holocuast denial as a BNP subject, like communism as a communist ideology!

And no, you didn't just try to compare Keynesians & communists to neo-Nazis?

Don't try to pull something out of context with what I said.  You should know what I'm getting at.  Some people will refuse to read something because of the ideological stance the author has.  I think this is a bias, intolerent, and ignorant way of looking at things.  People should be open to different views.  It's as simple as that.

The Holocaust deniers estimated Jewish losses from various concentration camps, and place it around 3 million Jews killed. Auschwitz alone has contributed to 1.1 million deaths. You go beyond that and declare none of those deaths happened (or rather, that they weren't mass exterminated). Incidentally, who is the one making hasty accusations here? Figures are derived from Nazis paperwork and some from population demographics and ther are some academic disputes about that. However, all agree that 6 million Jews disappeared - i.e. negative evidence. The Red Cross reports on the number of corpses present at the time of the liberation of the camps, and doesn't take into account mass graves and creamtions. The Holocaust deniers don't deny the holocaust killings but rather the number of Jews killed!

3 millions Jews killed or died?  Not all agree on the numbers.  Those numbers were once 11 million, and at a time up to near 20 million.  It's as they killed off the entire European Jewish population.  What you're not taking into consideration is Jewish immigration.  Take a look at rising Jewish numbers in surrounding countries.  The link I provided goes into that.

As far as paperwork goes, I've read there is no official document that Hitler signed about the extermination of Jewish people in concentration camps.

Furthermore, the Jews were not simply a workforce, were you declared the Nazi's would kill them! Ha! If they were then they'd have been working with the French labourers etc. who were transported to Germany in the form of forced labour. The Holocaust death toll is speculative and based upon actual documentation, bodies found, survivors and guards testimonies and inferences drawn from those and other sources. You're trying to give excuses for the existence of the cremation chambers, and that is fine but how do you account for the photos, testimonials, Nazi official documents pertaining to medical torture (which can be found in the Harvard archives, Nuremberg trials section), the six million missing Jews etc ... ? This might interest you.  Moreover, why would such a huge number of Jews die at such rate? Auschwitz ovens could burn thousands every day (I've been there) and are you telling me that thousands died of natural causes at the same time?

I'm not here to act like the Nazi regime was a group of upright citizens who were the nicest people on earth.  Our own military has tortured captured terrorists without reason.  I'm pretty sure that wasn't part of the strategy either.  You sort of brought up a point subcounsciously, the amount of missing Jews.  Again, if you are get past your bias and read the link I provided it goes into the amount of Jews who left Germany.  At the rate you discuss the killing of the Jewish population they could have actually killed of the entire Jewish population, this didn't happen.

You never think there might actually be a conspiracy to this?  I'm not so quick to take the public school history book version of the world as fact.  After the war Germany takes on all the losses, and Soviet Russia is next in line for control of Europe.  I'm willing to believe there was a huge change of facts to bring Germany down further, and have any Zionist get the power they want.

If your avatar isn't Stauffenberg what other SS officer is it?  I want to know since you seem pretty hell bent on disproving my holocaust stance.

Also, Ernst Zundel, who simply published Did Six Million Really Die? has been listed as a national security threat and has been in prison for "hate crimes".  As far as I know he's still not allowed back into Canada.

If the US didn't intervene in WWII, I would think that Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt in due time.  Their Eastern front might have been even bloodier, which is hard to imagine, and the French resistance would have gnawed away at them on the West, all while living under some crazy economic central planning.

I would think that Nazi Germany would have gone bankrupt in due time

"In due time" could mean a lot of people dying, though. Assuming in a hypothetical situation that Nazi Germany is existing in an anarcho-capitalist society (as in it is the world's exception). What would be done to save the lives of the people who would have otherwise been dying in the Holocaust?

I asked a question on page 1 regarding Person A, etc. that no one has answered yet. Kind of the same subject.

The only reason I've ever wondered if skepticism of the Holocaust might be justified is the fact that Holocaust denial is banned in various places (it's an offense that can carry prison time in Soviet Germany).

Clayton -

Brian:

"In due time" could mean a lot of people dying, though. Assuming in a hypothetical situation that Nazi Germany is existing in an anarcho-capitalist society (as in it is the world's exception). What would be done to save the lives of the people who would have otherwise been dying in the Holocaust?

Brian, think this one through for a minute.  In a stateless society, what would individuals do?  Well, you're an individual, so picture yourself in a stateless society, and tell us what you would do.

Also, just because Nazis are killing people, doesn't mean that everyone else has a moral obligation to stop them, intervene etc.  That's the impossible standard we addressed earlier.  If you can justify one intervention as a moral necessity, then it becomes impossible not to justify them all, and be morally compelled to intervene everywhere, at all times.

Stuff like the holocaust sucks.  But the answer is to structure society so that genocides dont happen, not so that we can deal with them better.

Well, you're an individual, so picture yourself in a stateless society, and tell us what you would do.

I would like very much to say that I would have went into Germany with other volunteers to fight back against the Nazis and help the people whom they were trying to kill. I don't mean to say that in an "I'm so heroic" way, but that is what I would feel the need to do. Whether I would actually do that in this hypothetical situation, I don't want to talk about that at all because none of us really knows what we would have done back then. Then again, the Nazis would have seen me as an individual attacking them instead of as a collective country attacking them, so - while I believe the Nazis easily had every hurt coming to them - nobody would be dragged into the situation that didn't want to be in it, and the blowbacks (if any were to arise) would be harmful to me and my fellow volunteers. I guess that's what would happen in a stateless society.

Stuff like the holocaust sucks.  But the answer is to structure society so that genocides dont happen, not so that we can deal with them better.

I like what you said here a lot. This is kind of what you were talking about when reversing the argument before regarding the Civil War. I always felt very defense when people bring this up, but I never stopped to bring up that this wouldn't have happened in a stateless society.

Another thing I asked above, though. If I got in contact with the victims of the holocaust somehow, and they asked me to fight off the Nazis for them because they somehow weren't capable of doing so on their own, would that be justified as a service transaction or would it be seen as me aggressively attacking someone (the Nazis) who haven't done anything to me personally?

Brian:

I like what you said here a lot. This is kind of what you were talking about when reversing the argument before regarding the Civil War. I always felt very defense when people bring this up, but I never stopped to bring up that this wouldn't have happened in a stateless society.

Some people may say that is a copout, and people will say ridiculous things like "be realistic" which is a non-argument, so thats the next level of arguing that without states it is hard to carry out genocides and that governments have committed more genocide against their own citizens than any private individuals have.

A lot of being a libertarian or anarchist is sticking to your guns when people dont like your point of view and staying optimistic while being realistic.  We're not pretending we can achieve utopia.  We are only trying to avoid setting ourselves up in a system that is contradictory (defies logic) and self-defeating (moral double standards).

Brian:

Another thing I asked above, though. If I got in contact with the victims of the holocaust somehow, and they asked me to fight off the Nazis for them because they somehow weren't capable of doing so on their own, would that be justified as a service transaction or would it be seen as me aggressively attacking someone (the Nazis) who haven't done anything to me personally?

It would not be aggression if you were acting as the agent for the victim.  Situations like this aren't completely cut and dried.  I am sure if you lead some sort of force to liberate people in a genocide condition without their explicit prior consent and didn't act irresponsibly like kill German civilians or bomb schools, very few if any civilized people would have an issue with that.

Holocaust was an example of interventionism in the first place. There were only 240,000 Jews in Germany. So what is Nazi Germany killing Soviet Jews other than an itervention in the Soviet Union?

So I don't see how Holocaust is an argument for interventionism rather than against it. No Nazi German interventionism, no holocaust.

No Nazi German interventionism, no holocaust.

Everyone knows that. We're focusing on intervention by those wanting to help, not intervention by the criminals.

Everyone knows that. We're focusing on intervention by those wanting to help, not intervention by the criminals.

We are focusing on fairy tales? I thought we were focusing on history. No US interventionism, no 1 million Japanese and German civilians killed and 12 million made homeless by the allied bombing. What non-ciminals?

"We're focusing on intervention by those wanting to help"

I suppose the millions drafted wanted to help. That's why they had to be drafted.

"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?

Overthrowing themselves. Then there would be no reason for anyone to invade. People who wanted to "intervene" could go on their own instead of volunteering other people by gunpoint to intervene for them.

We are focusing on fairy tales?

We've been talking about a hypothetical stateless society aside from the Nazis for a while. So... kind of.

No US interventionism, no 1 million Japanese and German civilians killed and 12 million made homeless by the allied bombing.

I know that. All you mentioned before were the interventions by the Nazis, which is obvious.

I suppose the millions drafted wanted to help. That's why they had to be drafted. 

I said 'the ones wanting to help', not the United States, which I'll comment on below.

People who wanted to "intervene" could go on their own instead of volunteering other people by gunpoint to intervene for them. 

I don't know if you two didn't read all of the earlier posts or if this is just a communication problem, but we (libertystudent and I) have been talking about how people could help in an stateless society assuming the already-mentioned Nazi intervention in other countries and Holocaust. I don't know why you guys jumped the gun and assumed I was talking about the United States entering WWII.

Funny.  The reason the Nazi's gave for invading Poland was the "ongoing holocaust" against Germans there.

I don't know if you two didn't read all of the earlier posts or if this is just a communication problem, but we (libertystudent and I) have been talking about how people could help in an stateless society assuming the already-mentioned Nazi intervention in other countries and Holocaust.

Then get your terms straight. Interventionism is when the state does it. There is no interventionism by a stateless society by definition.

I think the 6 million number was inflated, but there is absolutely no reason to believe the extermination of 3+ give-or-take million didn't happen.

Marko:

Then get your terms straight. Interventionism is when the state does it. There is no interventionism by a stateless society by definition.

Brian has learned a lot about the ideas of freedom (as discussed here) in a short time, and has been very thoughtful taking on these topics.  Please give him the benefit of the doubt.

Btw, it is intervention even if it is on an individual level. We knew what he was talking about.

If I see a crime happening in front of me, I'm going to try to stop it.  Always have, always will.  So, as an individual, I have no problem getting in the way/stopping crime.  It's a far more tenous line on a society level, but I feel (subjective of course) that invasion at the least is justification for intervention.

But as was said above.  If people would grow up and govern themselves, this would never be a problem (the best intervention is a people against their own government).

chloe732:

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.

Do you believe in an interventionist policy whereby the United States supports dictators and tyrants?

What a silly question to ask. Of course, not!

Sorry to burst your bubble. Outside your cocoon Western imperialism is less popular than Saddam Hussein. In that war 4/5ths of the world were rooting for the Iraqi army.

This is not imperialism, but rather bringing liberty to the oppressed and a known tyrant to justice.

liberty student:

The justness of the war is not determined by its length.

... And I never said any such thing. I am merely showing much of the deaths occurred after the war.

liberty student:

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.

With respect, I am starting to get the impression you don't know what you're talking about. The US and British forces were deployed to deal with a man who was warned of these consequences if he continued to lie, deceive and work against the UNMOVIC in Iraq on a subject as important as WMDs. He was given to his own people and their courts to judge him and they see fit.

liberty student:

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?

I am trying to understand where you're coming from and what argument you're trying to make.

liberty student:

Fluke:

What mass murder?

Fallujah?

You're going to have to explain what that means. You can't just throw a word by the allegation of "mass murder" and hope I am just going to node and go "yeaah". Fallujah was an insurgent ridden city which they tried gain control of. Insurgents were everywhere - underground, on rooftops, alleyways etc ... US & British Marines sustained some of their heaviest casualties there. Also, you do realise this was after the Iraq War.

liberty student:

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?

This is the problem with users on internet forums cutting up each sentence and trying to dispute them individually. They tend to fail at getting the big picture. If you read what I said below you'll see that David Cameron is an atrocious - almost laughable - comparison.

liberty student:

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?

American forces discovered around 55 gallon drums of cyclosarin, a blister agent, and Danish forces discovered 120mm shells with of a WMD - in liquid form - that initially tested as a blister agent (a WMD). Three tons of “Yellow Cake” purchased from Nigeria and 1.7 metric tons of enriched uranium. Oh, and 17 chemical warheads [containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin]. So, yes he did have WMDs. Do you suspect there is something under David Cameron's bed?

As to "what was his crime?" You do realise he used chemical weapons on the defenceless Kurds, starved them, cut of their water supply and shot them. Do you not consider this a crime? Do you think he should be able to get away with it - which, of course, he would in your world?

Most people are ignorant of the numerous violations of UN Resolutions that Saddam Hussein agreed to (on very serious issues) and refused to comply with. In 2002, UN Security Council Res. 1441 was passed. This resolution was Saddam's 'FINAL' warning to comply - a point that was made many times. He was asked to comply with, amongst others, Res. 660, Res. 661, Res. 678, Res. 686, Res. 687, Res. 688, Res. 707, Res. 715, Res. 986, and Res. 1284. Or do you not mind having the Saddam Hussein's of the world do as they please - on issues such as WMDs?

It is almost laughable that amidst all of this, you expect a Prime Minister to pretend Saddam wasn't a threat, or pose a reasonable one. A man who made arrogant claims of having these weapons, had sheltered terrorists (even those linked to 9/11), had bombed Iran for 8 years and various other countries and his own people ... and you're just going to hope he doesn't have WMDs?

liberty student:

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.

I don't know what you're talking about.

They were expelled and kicked-out of Iraq, so they couldn't do their searches. He lied to them, moved his weapons around before they arrived at sites and was caught doing so. He gave them false information almost all-the-time. Or do you think this is acceptable (on issues like WMDs)?

liberty student:

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!

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.

Of course it was a cheap ad hominem.

You're asking *me* what *I* did when *I* was 14-years-old. That has nothing to do with the actual argument regarding the Iraq War, but is an attempt to attack me for - as you put it - "I was inquiring as to the strength of your convictions". I have been debating this war for three years now, and although I have come across all-the-counter-arguments, people can't help attacking the person then the actual argument - even, supposed, moderators!

I was actually asking Brian - not you - an opinion on something that I have been trying to understand for some time. Namely; how AC fits in with interventionism. I wasn't actually debating the Iraq War. That was merely a side-remark. So I don't know why you're persisting with this?

liberty student:

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?

Which post? After having thought about this, it seems it would be very difficult for a single person to arrange mass killings. I can't invisage that happening without some form of coersion - which is not possible in an anacrhic society. But even if he did, the chap would get away with it in an anarchic society - I think. I am trying, very hard, to become an anarcho-capitalist but the transition isn't easy. I am an interventionist at the moment, where a governments exist (and probably always will) and since it exists, it might as well do the moral and right decision to deal with dictators who try to mass exterminate their own people, and torture them etc ... I am also an interventionist in the individual sense. So, if someone is getting raped down an alleyway, I wouldn't just walk past.

liberty student:

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.

Actually, you very much did start this.

Me : I am not sure about X. How does that fit-in with AC? I happen to think Y was right, and want to understand how that links with AC.
You: OMG! You think Y is right!!!!1

What do you mean you're not an interventionist? So, if you see someone getting tortured and killed, you'll just walk on? Christ!

liberty student:

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?

Arh! Now you're reverting away from interventionism, and to the Iraq War uniquely. As if the Iraq war = interventionism. I like how you switch between the two.

Before I start on this point, I do love how you refer to "the bad he did"! Lol! As I see it, loss of life happens all-the-time and I think fighting to liberate people, removing a tyrannical dictator who forced 4 million Iraqis to flee the country, is the only noble (and a necessary) war. The nature of war is going to involve loss of life, and I can't say that pleases me, but what kind of world would we live in, if dictators who committed crimes against humanity and knew that nobody would stop him or help the future (and previous) victims. Since you're talking about Saddam, what about his victims? How many more people did we save by removing him? What if we did it a decade-ago, perhaps we could have saved the Kurds from having to die horrible poisonous deaths? Oh wait, those lives don't involve British or American lives? Right? Because we don't mind what he does, as long as no English and Americans and their precious lives are spent doing something decent in the world. I can't help but feel anti-interventionism is morally dysfunctional.

I was actually asking Brian - not you - an opinion on something that I have been trying to understand for some time. Namely; how AC fits in with interventionism. I wasn't actually debating the Iraq War. That was merely a side-remark. 

I never saw you ask me something. What's AC?

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.

 

From the Dave Chappelle Show:

 

Audience Member:  Negrodamus, why is President Bush so sure Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

Negrodamus:  Because he has the receipt.

It's popular in well-educated communities to trash high school teaching.  While high school teaching is often terrible, I'd point out that there also are certain limits to what we can accomplish.  Students don't have the background that college students do, because we give them that background.  They don't have the maturity to handle certain topics well, and part of my job is teaching that, and study skills, and so on.  The criticism that high school history is 'comic book caricature' seems to assume that students ought to come out of high school understanding the full complexity of all of human history, without any training in historical method, research methods, or economics.  It's an absurd assumption. 

Hey Joe, the french resistance was half assed. French civilians never got along with guns.

I've returned to lurking for a while, but this topic roused me to post...

 

Holocaust or not, didn't FDR deny Jews leaving Germany access to the US because they threatened his chances at a third term? Please, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Liberty Studen:

Btw, it is intervention even if it is on an individual level. We knew what he was talking about.

What he thought he was talking about.

@Fluke, who is that on your avatar anyway?

Fluke:

liberty student:

The justness of the war is not determined by its length.

... And I never said any such thing. I am merely showing much of the deaths occurred after the war.

Comrade, the war is not over.  We have always been at war with Eastasia.

The rest of your response is a testament to propaganda and progressive nationalism.  You're not even able to answer about Fallujah, which was a wholesale mass murder of thousands of civilians, who were defending their own city against foreign invaders.  Saddam was not in Fallujah.  Saddam was not in Abu Ghraib, where the white knights of western imperialism were committing atrocities like this;

http://www.americanprisonsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Abu_Ghraib_prison19.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/f/f2/20080408052912!Abu-ghraib-leash.jpg

That's the moral reality of the sort of people who were sent to get rid of that real bastard Saddam.  That's what war and interventionism and imperialism creates.  You can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, and that you parrot propaganda back at me, oblivious to how the west created and supported Saddam at his worst, turning a blind eye to him for decades, and mass murdering Iraqi civilians through acts of war throughout the 90s.

When you resolve your ignorance and question what you're told on the telly and down at the pub, when you reach beyond the mindless repetition of well marketed and rehearsed narratives and actually question why it is necessary to invade a country to catch one man, who wasn't running from anyone, then maybe, you will be able to fashion a morality which is consistent with the actions used to carry it out.

@Fluke, who is that on your avatar anyway?

A guy in a SS uniform.

Chloe732:

Do you believe in an interventionist policy whereby the United States supports dictators and tyrants?

Fluke:

What a silly question to ask. Of course, not!

So you opposed the U.S. policy that supported Saddam during Iraq's war with Iran?

Or the 1953 Iranian coup d'état?

Or when the U.S. backed a military coup that overthrew President Carlos Prio Socarrás and placed Fulgencio Batista in 1948?

Or he 1954 coup d’état in Guatemala overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz?

Way to build extremists like Che and Castro.

Brian,

I think that is the short list.  Intervention in foreign policy really is no different than intervention in the economy.  The consequences are not those  that are originally advertised.

Fluke,

Up until about three years ago, I held views that were identical to yours.  Your description about the justification for the '03 Iraq War is identical to what I would have said back in 2003.  Your long list of rebuttals to Liberty Student could have been written by yours truly, until about three years ago...

Once I began to understand the nature of interventionism, in both the economy and foreign policy, my paradigm shifted.

Back in 2003, I would have disregarded people like myself as merely "pacifist" or "isolationist" or "naive" or you name it.

Now that the economy has imploded as a direct consequence of interventionism, and U.S. foreign policy has created an unsustainable empire, my views, and understanding, has changed from what it once was.

@Fluke, who is that on your avatar anyway?

Still waiting...

google image: ralph fiennes amon goeth

from schindlers list. classic film