| Blogs > ggofthejungle |
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
Because you know Sam, when you believe something it becomes real. And while "country" doesn't really mean a lot nowadays because of globalization and stuff it had a real meaning back then and people were not ashamed of being American, German, English or French. They were proud. And if they didn't believe it strong enough we would speak German nowadays instead of English (ok it is a bit more complicated than this but you get the idea). | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well User was banned for this and the other 5,000 posts like it. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote: on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away. you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote: on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away. you can't be a postmodern sophist AND a fairy-tale nostalgist, sorry. they should have been a little less proud of being whatever made-up ethnos and joined the revolution, instead they slaughtered each other pointlessly for their capitalist overlords. oh well It is just that i'm able to understand people without trying to sell my little communist ideas. Oh well whatever. Gl with the revolution. Like if the commie overlords are better than the capitalist pigs. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:35 sam!zdat wrote: on the contrary, reality is that which, when you stop believing it, doesn't go away. Then all your memories are lies. And you become a fucking goldfish. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International If you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur... there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom. and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:48 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: Capitalist overlords? Join the revolution? What kool-aid have you been drinking? I mean, I can see something like that being said nowadays for the Iraq war, but World War I? I'm not one to blow the McCarthy trumpet and point fingers at people, but what you're saying is really reminiscent of that "global workers' revolution" bullshit that communists prattle on about. Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe? If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution. http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On January 22 2014 04:57 sam!zdat wrote: that was the idea, you know. where do you think the "global workers' revolution bullshit" COMES from? it comes from the anti-militarist internationalism of the WWI period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International If you're surprised about this I think you just don't know very much about early 20th century... what does the Iraq war have to do with it? A neocolonial police action fought by our professionalized and mechanized standing army? now THAT's a nonsequitur... there's no communist overlords. if there's overlords, it's not communism. communism is freedom. and yes yes, I know, it's the end of history and we are all capitalists now, there is no escape... fortunately for me there ain't nothin a southern man likes better than fightin a lost cause I'm sorry, you drank the kool-aid. There's nothing I can do for you anymore. On January 22 2014 05:08 IgnE wrote: Why do you think WWI was fought? To stop the evil huns from taking over Europe? If you are interested in WWI and like podcasts, I recommend this one. It's even free from talk about a world revolution. http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php/hharchive/Show-50---Blueprint-for-Armageddon-I/First World War-World War One-Great War Occam's razor: the simplest explanation is often the correct one. A lot of alliances and the fact that everyone hated each other (which was the status quo for many centuries in Europe) let to Europe becoming the equivalent of a powder keg. The war itself was started by a "spark", the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. The underlying tensions of the time include such things as militarism, nationalism and clashes caused by imperialistic doctrines. I see no need for fiendish capitalistic ulterior motives to explain WWI; the above is really all that is necessary to get millions of people at each other's throats. Sure, there may have been secondary fiendish capitalistic motives for WWI, but they would have been just that, secondary. I'm not going to bother with the podcast until I know that you, at least, aren't as insane as Sam. People with strongly held (but completely insane) beliefs will pass off unverified or poorly verified beliefs as fact, meaning I would have to dissect every single tiny thing to come out of the podcaster's mouth, which is a pain and something I don't feel like bothering with at all if he is one of those nauseatingly stupid communists. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
Why do you think everyone was militaristic and colony-crazy? | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
On January 22 2014 05:51 IgnE wrote: The podcast has nothing to do with communism. It's done by a guy with midwestern sensibilities. Why do you think everyone was militaristic and colony-crazy? Well that's nice. Before actually educating myself on the topic, I'd guess that people were colony-crazy because of the limitless bounty of foreign lands and probably some economic downturn or slowdown of some sort. I'd guess that people were militaristic because of the pride involved in nationalism; the fear, hatred and dehumanization of other nations under nationalism, the fear of the power of industrial warfare, the pride in your own mastery of industrial warfare and some other factors. Either way, those are just guesses. Onwards to learning! | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
It changed the way men think about and experience virtually everything. Its shadow stalks over almost every cultural narrative, every tl.net debate, every abstract thought the civilised world over. Such gigantic consequences must have had an equally gigantic motive, right? I wonder if the proponents of these views realise how closely their proclivities come to the doctrine of intelligent design! | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 22 2014 06:09 MoltkeWarding wrote: Because the First World War was seminal catastrophe of the 20th century, there is a natural desire to ascribe some great portentous meaning behind it. After all, nothing but a complete metaphysical doctrine, declared its unblemished opacity, can be felt to be worthy of an event so rich in futility, so royal in sacrifice and so superfluous in heroism and every martial virtue known to thought and deed. In the lives of peoples, great messianic movements have often followed great national traumas, and the First World War was no exception, for its sheer gigantic nature paved the way for a new kind of adulating faith. The First World War killed perhaps 10 million people, and it gave birth to modern ideology. It changed the way men think about and experience virtually everything. Its shadow stalks over almost every cultural narrative, every tl.net debate, every abstract thought the civilised world over. Such gigantic consequences must have had an equally gigantic motive, right? I wonder if the proponents of these views realise how closely their proclivities come to the doctrine of intelligent design! Your prolixity really got the better of you this post. Who are these proponents and what do they say? | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
I'd guess that people were colony-crazy because of the limitless bounty of foreign lands and probably some economic downturn or slowdown of some sort. This is why what is now known as the "Scramble for Africa" is more appropriately viewed as series of isolated events which appear to congeal together into a thematic whole. Two of the British Empire's great acquisitions in the late-19th century, for instance, the Sudan and the Boer Republics, had nothing to do with the expansionist intentions of the British government, and occurred in spite of them. Bismarck too, allowed German colonies to be established not because he wanted them, but because of the imperatives of domestic politics. The German colonial lobby which pressured the German government was dominated by adventurist dilettantes. One of the ironies of German history is the fact that most of the German colonies were acquired with the casual flick of the pen by the Europe-oriented Bismarck, whereas the era of Wilhelminian personal rule, often associated with Weltpolitik, gained relatively little territorially for the German Empire, and what little he gained was acquired at much greater political expense. I'd guess that people were militaristic because of the pride involved in nationalism; the fear, hatred and dehumanization of other nations under nationalism I don't think we can speak of "dehumanisation" until the war actually broke out, and propaganda began to seep in. One difference between the First and Second World Wars is that in 1914, the nations were relived that war broke out, whereas in 1939, no nation saw the outbreak of war as anything other than a catastrophe. Prior to the First World War, there was a general consensus among civilised nations that war was in the life of nations what sport was in the life of an individual. There may be strain, exertion, generally suffering in the process of its execution, but it was also a necessity, intermittently exercised to maintain the health of a people. Nations which did not regularly challenge the moral and martial fortitude of its people, and abstained from occasionally calling them up to fill the rosters of duty and sacrifice, become corrupt and decadent. The notion many classically-educated men held about history was a cyclical one: Luxury and ease in time made virile nations decadent and effete, at which point they would be overthrown by younger, more masculine, and more primitive races. That martial spirit would in their turn bring them victory, followed by luxury, ease, and finally, decadence. Thus in ancient times the Semites were overthrown by the Aryan Persians, who in turn were overthrown by the Greeks, who in their turn were overthrown by the Romans, who in their turn were overthrown by the Germanic tribes, the Merovingians, the Carolinians, etc.. The key transition being each successive empire's transformation from a military tribe into a cosmopolitan empire; along the way they gained in civilisation, but lost in courage and energy. Who are these proponents and what do they say? Anyone who begins with the sentence "World War 1 was about..." is already making an a-historical rationalisation about history. It may surprise most people to grasp the notion that most governments began the war in 1914 with only the faintest notions of what their war aims were. Before the ideological age, most people responded to the call of war as a personal test of loyalty and duty, rather than by a notion of the world they were fighting to create. That came into the war, alas, with Wilson, and has been the refrain of almost every great war fought ever since. This does not mean that the soldiers who raced to their country's colours were thoughtless; they merely lived in a pre-ideological age, and they had no way of divining the mysteries which only time could unfold. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On January 22 2014 05:39 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: I'm sorry, you drank the kool-aid. There's nothing I can do for you anymore. Sure, there may have been secondary fiendish capitalistic motives for WWI, but they would have been just that, secondary. I'm not going to bother with the podcast until I know that you, at least, aren't as insane as Sam. People with strongly held (but completely insane) beliefs will pass off unverified or poorly verified beliefs as fact, meaning I would have to dissect every single tiny thing to come out of the podcaster's mouth, which is a pain and something I don't feel like bothering with at all if he is one of those nauseatingly stupid communists. This simplistic understanding of the logic of capital is why you think sam is insane, all the while secretly fearing the topics he brings up because it might upset your comfortable worldview. The serious contention is not that there is a cabal of capitalists who secretly plotted together to bring about a European war at the beginning of the 20th century. There were actually quite a few economists who thought that wars simply couldn't be fought anymore, because everyone recognized that they were too great a cost at the expense of business and trade. The serious contention is that the logic of capital drove the very forces that ended up creating the powderkeg of Europe. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Poland didn't cease to exist in 1914; it was non-existent since 1795, when Third Partition split the grounds of our kingdom between Prussia, Austria and Russia. It was the outcome of WW1 that allowed Poland's rebirth since both Prussia and Russia - the major instigators of Partition - basically ceased to exists (Russia got consumed by a civil war and eventually turned into Soviet Union while Prussia turned into Weimar Republic). That's why 11 November 1918 is a double-special date for Polish people, as the end of the war marked the beginning of so-called "Second Polish Republic" Poland existed in three forms between 1795 and 1918: in the form of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw after 1807 created by Napoleon, the Kingdom of Poland from 1815 to 1831 in dynastic union with Russia, and another Kingdom of Poland between 1916 and 1918, under a German-supervised regency. meh, "country" is just a thing they make up to get you to die for the ruling class Although I don't agree with much of the BBC's 10 Myths about WW1 series, they were correct in pointing out that the casualties of the war fell disproportionately on the ruling classes of the Western countries. Proportionately, they volunteered and died in the highest numbers. Remember Charles Masterman's eulogy to them in England after the War: "In the retreat from Mons and the first battle of Ypres perished the flower of the British aristocracy. In the useless slaughter of the guards on the Somme, or the Rifle Brigade at Hedge Wood, half the great families of England, heirs of large estates and wealth, perished without a cry." A lot of alliances and the fact that everyone hated each other (which was the status quo for many centuries in Europe) let to Europe becoming the equivalent of a powder keg The powder keg metaphor referred to the Balkans, and not to Great Power rivalries in general. That an outbreak of hostilities between two Great Powers might ensue in a general European war had always been true in European politics. However, the instability of the Balkans between San Stefano and the Second Balkan War was a special quality of that age, which combined with the overlapping interests of the Great Powers, made it a uniquely dangerous corner of the world. Re: OP, who said: Germany invades, terrible damage, we flee from our capital. We were down only to one base, Moldova, with russians supporting us. Your summary of Romania's participation in the war is very nice. Yet I feel you left something out, you know, concerning Romania's entry into the war. There is an impish trick here, because "Germany invades" has somehow become a way to set the context to every narrative without requiring a context itself! Gypsies steal, Jews commit usury, Germans invade. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On January 21 2014 15:52 lichter wrote: i live in asia i don't count it as a big one yet Central Africa has been in a near continuous state of war for a while. 5 million dead during the Congo Civil War for example.... | ||
|
NeuroticPsychosis
United States322 Posts
| ||
|
sorrowptoss
Canada1431 Posts
On January 22 2014 13:09 NeuroticPsychosis wrote: Off topic but one of my favorite books is "All Quiet on the Western Front" which talks about the war from the German perspective Same. Read it in French. Great book. Sheds light on the conditions of War, regardless of nation. | ||
| ||
The PiG Daily
Best Games of SC
SHIN vs herO
SHIN vs Classic
Rogue vs Cure
MaxPax vs Clem
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Afreeca ASL
 304RSL Revival
Serral vs SHIN
herO vs Solar
Online Event
RSL Revival
Clem vs ByuN
Rogue vs Lambo
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
Sparkling Tuna Cup
INu's Battles
Cure vs herO
ByuN vs Rogue
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
