|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 03 2015 04:10 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +You're making it seem like the kind of domination the US exerced on Europe is comparable to the kind of domination the german wanted to impose on the world. Germany did not have global ambitions, so that point is moot. Nor was there a uniform kind of "domination" which uniformly directed German foreign policy 1933-1945. American objectives too, differed significantly over time. However, with oneofthem, one cannot be too picky about nailing down subtleties like that. What he is interested in is the model of how the global order appears to be, not how it emerged or why it exists in its present form. Show nested quote +This is absolutly wrong. I just lead you to Stalin 1939 Speech of Politburo where Stalin expain how it is "essential that the war continue for as long as possible" for his goal was that "Germany should carry the war as long as possible so that England and France grow weary and become exhausted to such degree that they are no longer in a position to put down a Sovetized Germany". Seriously, some of your comments are closer to blind anti americanism than historical analysis. The speech you refer to is of dubious authenticity, although the cadence of Stalin's tone corresponds with the Kremlin's foreign communications at the time. This is largely due to the need for an internal ideological justification in terms of Soviet doctrine for the sudden and unexpected diplomatic maneouvre from United Front tactics to the Soviet-German pact. If you recall, in August 1939 the Communist parties over Europe were suddenly directed to reverse their propaganda lines to adhere to the new line. It was not the German-Soviet pact which was the camouflage for ideology; it was the official ideological line which was the camouflage for Soviet state interests. By1939, Stalin was a Russian statesman, and not a revolutionary. I would like you to explain this matter about blind anti-Americanism.
It took half of France. The US did not, and De Gaulle was free enough to get out of the OTAN. Yes, the US wanted to assert dominance over europe, but it never wanted to control it. You are really quite the unreallist guy if you actually the believe the US had a biggest desire than the German to take over the world... that's nonsense.
And yes it is not clear whether the speech is authentic or not, so I removed it from my post. You are also wrong about Stalin. He was not a revolutionary, that much is true, but he believe capitalism was the past, and waited anxiously for the rest of europe to realize that fact. Russia never had any desire to take over europe, that much is true, but it had the desire to see communism rule over europe. It was both their ideology and their pride.
|
Do you have any proof that Stalin did not wanted to invade ?
The Stalin did not want to invade what? At what time? On what basis? In 1945, the Soviet Union was still working relatively amicably with the Americans and British on the Potsdam-Yalta consensus. Allied Control Commissions maintained their work in the defeated capitols under Soviet domination. The USSR began demobilisation in the middle of 1945.
The tensions which ignited the Cold War came later, over the shape of the postwar order in Europe.
|
On March 03 2015 04:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:The Stalin did not want to invade what? At what time? On what basis? In 1945, the Soviet Union was still working relatively amicably with the Americans and British on the Potsdam-Yalta consensus. Allied Control Commissions maintained their work in the defeated capitols under Soviet domination. The USSR began demobilisation in the middle of 1945. The tensions which ignited the Cold War came later, over the shape of the postwar order in Europe.
Well, I'm not going to go over the entirety of the russian revolution with you, but most communists at that time believed the revolution was going to happen in the rest of europe and were waiting anxiously for that moment - ready to finance and help revolutionary movement to take power. Stalin was no exception to that (and the Politburo speech, even if false - and first published in 1939 - was a perfect exemple of that) aside from his desire to put his nation's interests above others (which is the idea behind "socialism in one country").
In fact, it was a shock for most that the revolution happened in Russia first and foremost, and according to some (Polanyi comes to mind) the Russians were even waiting for the rest of europe to actually trully start "communism".
And are you not putting aside the fact that Russia's occupation of Baltic countries started in 1940 ?
|
It took half of France. The US did not, and De Gaulle was free enough to get out of the OTAN. Yes, the US wanted to assert dominance over europe, but it never wanted to control it.
Germany did not take half of France, no more than Bismarck took a quarter of France. The 1940 Armistice was not a Peace Treaty; the occupied zones were placed under German administration for wartime use, and their final status was subject to a general peace treaty. Germany took back Alsace-Lorraine, and the Italians received a few rocks in the Alps. Other than that, France would have been demilitarised in a peace treaty, but otherwise left territoriality intact.
And yes it is not clear whether the speech is authentic or not, so I removed it from my post. You are also wrong about Stalin. He was not a revolutionary, that much is true, but he believe capitalism was the past, and waited anxiously for the rest of europe to realize that fact. Russia never had any desire to take over europe, that much is true, but it had the desire to see communism rule over europe. It was both their ideology and their pride.
If so why did he not only spurn the Greek communist insurgency, but prevented Tito from aiding the Greeks until the Cold War began? Why did he remain indifferent about the fate of Western communist parties under either Nazi or Western regimes? Why did he, when Molotov returned from his Berlin conference in 1940, support of Soviet adherence to the Tripartite Pact? Why, when the postwar order came, did Stalin prefer subservient henchmen to authentic communist idealists who were purged in the Anti-Tito purges? The list goes on and on, but the principal question is the misunderstanding of the Cold War altogether, in which it is still regarded as a primarily ideological conflict.
|
On March 03 2015 04:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:The Stalin did not want to invade what? At what time? On what basis? In 1945, the Soviet Union was still working relatively amicably with the Americans and British on the Potsdam-Yalta consensus. Allied Control Commissions maintained their work in the defeated capitols under Soviet domination. The USSR began demobilisation in the middle of 1945. The tensions which ignited the Cold War came later, over the shape of the postwar order in Europe.
Categorically untrue. In 1945, as America was devising Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of mainland Japan, Stalin was simultaneously setting the ground work for his own Far East invasion, beginning with Manchuria. With Japan in the throws of defeat and staring down a still immensely capable Pacific fleet, it's hard to imagine any conceivable motivations for Soviet invasion other than occupation and projected influence.
Remaining in 1945, it was the post-war goal of the Soviet Union to actually RETAIN wartime territory gains and to retain dominion over Eastern Europe. Shifting to the Cold War, it was the indisputable goal of the Soviet Union to spread communism and Soviet influence throughout Europe as a means to thwart American influence in the region.
Your interpretations of history, while provocative, are not conducive to intellectual discussion and have effectively side-tracked this thread once again.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Germany did not take half of France, no more than Bismarck took a quarter of France. The 1940 Armistice was not a Peace Treaty; the occupied zones were placed under German administration for wartime use, and their final status was subject to a general peace treaty. Germany took back Alsace-Lorraine, and the Italians received a few rocks in the Alps. Other than that, France would have been demilitarised in a peace treaty, but otherwise left territoriality intact.
well good to know neither occupied france nor vichy france was utterly dominated by germans. guess french didn't really surrender either.
|
Categorically untrue. In 1945, as America was devising Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of mainland Japan, Stalin was simultaneously setting the ground work for his own Far East invasion, beginning with Manchuria. With Japan in the throws of defeat and staring down a still immensely capable Pacific fleet, it's hard to imagine any conceivable motivations for Soviet invasion other than occupation and projected influence.
Remaining in 1945, it was the post-war goal of the Soviet Union to actually RETAIN wartime territory gains and to retain dominion over Eastern Europe. Shifting to the Cold War, it was the indisputable goal of the Soviet Union to spread communism and Soviet influence throughout Europe as a means to thwart American influence in the region.
Your interpretations of history, while provocative, are not conducive to intellectual discussion and have effectively side-tracked this thread once again.
It was the Americans who goaded Stalin to enter the war against Japan at Tehran no less than three months after the defeat of Germany. Germany was defeated on May 8, 1945. The USSR commenced military operations on August 8, 1945, in alignment with its Tehran obligations.
Therefore it was not an anti-American move, but in conformity with alliance obligations.
|
On March 03 2015 04:30 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Categorically untrue. In 1945, as America was devising Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of mainland Japan, Stalin was simultaneously setting the ground work for his own Far East invasion, beginning with Manchuria. With Japan in the throws of defeat and staring down a still immensely capable Pacific fleet, it's hard to imagine any conceivable motivations for Soviet invasion other than occupation and projected influence.
Remaining in 1945, it was the post-war goal of the Soviet Union to actually RETAIN wartime territory gains and to retain dominion over Eastern Europe. Shifting to the Cold War, it was the indisputable goal of the Soviet Union to spread communism and Soviet influence throughout Europe as a means to thwart American influence in the region.
Your interpretations of history, while provocative, are not conducive to intellectual discussion and have effectively side-tracked this thread once again.
It was the Americans who goaded Stalin to enter the war against Japan at Tehran no less than three months after the defeat of Germany. Germany was defeated on May 8, 1945. The USSR commenced military operations on August 8, 1945, in alignment with its Tehran obligations. Therefore it was not an anti-American move, but in conformity with alliance obligations.
No, the framework I'm referring to was completely unknown to American intelligence and is retroactively and mistakenly appropriated to American rationale in deciding to drop the atomic bombs (as opposed to waiting for a prolonged invasion, which would have given the Soviets time to prepare their own invasion).
Perhaps we should begin including sources? I'll have to uncover mine as I'm currently at work.
Clearly you're an educated individual, shall we shift focus to more contemporary issues, allowing this discussion to have actual merit?
|
Well, I'm not going to go over the entirety of the russian revolution with you, but most communists at that time believed the revolution was going to happen in the rest of europe and were waiting anxiously for that moment - ready to finance and help revolutionary movement to take power. Stalin was no exception to that (and the Politburo speech, even if false - and first published in 1939 - was a perfect exemple of that) aside from his desire to put his nation's interests above others (which is the idea behind "socialism in one country").
In fact, it was a shock for most that the revolution happened in Russia first and foremost, and according to some (Polanyi comes to mind) the Russians were even waiting for the rest of europe to actually trully start "communism".
And are you not putting aside the fact that Russia's occupation of Baltic countries started in 1940 ?
The ideological continuity between the Russian Revolution and the USSR in 1945 is not so simple as you have outlined it to be. By the outbreak of the Second World War, Stalin had already purged the internationalists from the politburo and developed Soviet state policy in conformity with national interests. Hitler was one of the few men who recognised this as early as the 20s (in his Second book, he wrote of Soviet policy developing in a National-Muscovite direction under Stalin, and came to respect Stalin as a national leader during the 30s and in the war.)
well good to know neither occupied france nor vichy france was utterly dominated by germans. guess french didn't really surrender either.
If I had said what you imply I had said, your sarcasm may have some humourous value to it.
|
On March 03 2015 04:26 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +It took half of France. The US did not, and De Gaulle was free enough to get out of the OTAN. Yes, the US wanted to assert dominance over europe, but it never wanted to control it. Germany did not take half of France, no more than Bismarck took a quarter of France. The 1940 Armistice was not a Peace Treaty; the occupied zones were placed under German administration for wartime use, and their final status was subject to a general peace treaty. Germany took back Alsace-Lorraine, and the Italians received a few rocks in the Alps. Other than that, France would have been demilitarised in a peace treaty, but otherwise left territoriality intact. Show nested quote +And yes it is not clear whether the speech is authentic or not, so I removed it from my post. You are also wrong about Stalin. He was not a revolutionary, that much is true, but he believe capitalism was the past, and waited anxiously for the rest of europe to realize that fact. Russia never had any desire to take over europe, that much is true, but it had the desire to see communism rule over europe. It was both their ideology and their pride. If so why did he not only spurn the Greek communist insurgency, but prevented Tito from aiding the Greeks until the Cold War began? Why did he remain indifferent about the fate of Western communist parties under either Nazi or Western regimes? Why did he, when Molotov returned from his Berlin conference in 1940, support of Soviet adherence to the Tripartite Pact? Why, when the postwar order came, did Stalin prefer subservient henchmen to authentic communist idealists who were purged in the Anti-Tito purges? The list goes on and on, but the principal question is the misunderstanding of the Cold War altogether, in which it is still regarded as a primarily ideological conflict.
Stalin thought the greek communist insurgency was just an adventure without any real chance for success. But the soviet helped the spanish revolution...
You're mixing ton of things together, Stalin was a strategist. He preferred alliance with the Nazi because he knew they were the dominating force - he wanted to ally with UK and France first but saw their weakness. Stalin also supported the popular front strategy prior to his alliance with the nazi, in order to fight against facism in Europe.
On March 03 2015 04:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +Well, I'm not going to go over the entirety of the russian revolution with you, but most communists at that time believed the revolution was going to happen in the rest of europe and were waiting anxiously for that moment - ready to finance and help revolutionary movement to take power. Stalin was no exception to that (and the Politburo speech, even if false - and first published in 1939 - was a perfect exemple of that) aside from his desire to put his nation's interests above others (which is the idea behind "socialism in one country").
In fact, it was a shock for most that the revolution happened in Russia first and foremost, and according to some (Polanyi comes to mind) the Russians were even waiting for the rest of europe to actually trully start "communism".
And are you not putting aside the fact that Russia's occupation of Baltic countries started in 1940 ? The ideological continuity between the Russian Revolution and the USSR in 1945 is not so simple as you have outlined it to be. By the outbreak of the Second World War, Stalin had already purged the internationalists from the politburo and developed Soviet state policy in conformity with national interests. Hitler was one of the few men who recognised this as early as the 20s (in his Second book, he wrote of Soviet policy developing in a National-Muscovite direction under Stalin, and came to respect Stalin as a national leader during the 30s and in the war.) Show nested quote +well good to know neither occupied france nor vichy france was utterly dominated by germans. guess french didn't really surrender either. If I had said what you imply I had said, your sarcasm may have some humourous value to it.
You doubt that there is an ideological continuity between the Russian Revolution and the USSR, but you have no argument to support this idea that Stalin had no desire to invade other countries. Not to mention you put aside the fact that he took over baltic countries in 1940.
You know that you can be both nationalist and imperialist right ? In fact that two oftentime goes together. Stalin was a nationalist, which Trotsky was not, but that doesn't mean that Stalin had no desire to take land from others - just like Hitler. The alsace moselle, or alsace lorraine, was french before it was german btw. It's also amazing that you take Hitler's writing as historical source, putting aside the political aspect of his claims.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2015 04:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +well good to know neither occupied france nor vichy france was utterly dominated by germans. guess french didn't really surrender either. If I had said what you imply I had said, your sarcasm may have some humourous value to it.
your post was an attempt to downplay the extent of german domination of france during ww2 by arguing the technical point that the occupation state is different from the state of a post war treaty. i mean really.
i don't see how you can deny that germans wanted to dominate france more than whatever americans did.
|
Stalin thought the greek communist insurgency was just an adventure without any real chance for success. But the soviet helped the spanish revolution...
The Greek insurgency was very strong in the postwar years, as the Royalist faction was dependent on British support. However, Churchill and Stalin had already assigned Greece to the Anglo-American sphere of influence in October 1944, and Stalin was ready to deal with the Western powers on a territorial basis.
During the Spanish Revolution, Soviet foreign policy was still controlled by Litvinov, the internationalist, and the Soviet Union's foreign policy was dedicated to United Front tactics. This did not only include intervention in the Spanish Civil War, but the three-power alliance with Pierre Laval's France and Czechoslovakia.
You doubt that there is an ideological continuity between the Russian Revolution and the USSR, but you have no argument to support this idea that Stalin had no desire to invade other countries. Not to mention you put aside the fact that he took over baltic countries in 1940.
Because I never claimed such a thing. I said that Stalin had no desire to dominate Europe, which is a different agenda from recovering the territories lost during the Russian revolution. Stalin's volte-face in 1939, leading to the dismissal of Litvinov, and the appointment of Molotov as foreign commissar was the final process in a long conversion in which he was convinced that the Western Powers were not only weak, but Germany embodied the tendency of the future, a power which he (like Mussolini and half a dozen Balkan statesmen) was beginning to imitate. Nonetheless, the Baltic grabs were symptomatic of the mistakes he made with regard to the Western Powers after 1945.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, as amended after the occupation of Poland, placed the Baltics and Finland in Stalin's sphere of influence. However, Moscow's interpretation of this treaty was different from Berlin's. Stalin thought that the German foreign office would have no objection to the Soviet-Finnish war or the occupation of the Baltics, or the ultimatum to Romania on Bessarabia. In the end, Stalin's heavy-handed interpretation of the Moscow pact played a role in the attack on the Soviet Union.
In arguing thus, it is a fundamentally different argument from one by which the Soviet Union had some pan-European, or global ambition. The principal demands Molotov made to Hitler and Ribbentrop in Berlin were: Soviet security guarantees in Bulgaria, evacuation of German troops from Finland, and Soviet control over the Dardanelles. If Germany were inclined to grant these requests, the Soviet Union was ready to join the Tripartite Pact as its fourth member! What is particular about these demands however, is their conformity with traditional Russian foreign policy goals, either in the sense of irredentism (Finland), Pan-Slavic influence (Bulgaria) or Orientalism (The Straits.)
That is a long way however, from any dream of dominating Germany and Western Europe.
|
On March 03 2015 04:44 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 04:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:well good to know neither occupied france nor vichy france was utterly dominated by germans. guess french didn't really surrender either. If I had said what you imply I had said, your sarcasm may have some humourous value to it. your post was an attempt to downplay the extent of german domination of france during ww2 by arguing the technical point that the occupation state is different from the state of a post war treaty. i mean really. i don't see how you can deny that germans wanted to dominate france more than whatever americans did.
Dominate France in what sense? Germany wished to be the dominant political and military power in Europe, and to that end, France would have come out of the war with a reduced military and political influence, and her foreign policy would have of necessity aligned with Germany's "new order." However, as the war went on, the German occupation forces also took increasing measures to win French public opinion, and resisted Spanish and Italian encroachments on French colonial territory.
The main point however, was that Germany did not "take over" half of France in the sense of a permanent conquest, much less was it a part of a global Stufenplan for World domination.
|
Really all that is your point of view. Point of view that, considering what happened before and after, seems quite difficult to support. Taking the Politburo speech for exemple, it is quite easy to understand Stalin's behavior regarding the tripartite pact. I agree that Stalin, and Russia overall never wanted to "dominate" europe from a militarist standpoint. I still believe - because there are no way to truthfully prove it - they wanted to assert their influence over europe - in the same way that the US did with the NATO.
For your narrative to be true, you still have to put aside a lot of things that - while not entirely historically proved - are heavily discussed : for exemple, the idea (supported by some soviet generals) that Stalin prepared the invasion of Germany before the operation barbarossa.
|
On March 03 2015 03:14 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote + I was a little curious about how you disagreed with anything else I said (unless by "missing" you refer to the fact that I only said the bare minimum agreed on by pretty much every historian). Very briefly: 1. The US is not a homogenous actor, so before we take this position as a given, we have to consider: On what basis would the US have entered the war? What were her war aims? What were her goals in the postwar order? How could she have rallied her allies and a divided public to embrace her vision? With what means would she have enforced it? The reality is, that by the 1930s, the revisionist narrative of the First World War became dominant in the US, and American participation in that war was repudiated by large swaths of the population. American national sentiments ran contrary to participation in the war. The problem of American policy is therefore an organic historical problem, and not simply a strategic-military one. 2. Contrary to insinuations in this thread, it was the American General Staff and George Marshall who pushed for an early landing in France in Autumn 1942 (Sledgehammer/Roundup) against British objections. There were severe strategic disagreements between the Americans and British over the conduct of the war, and partially this was due to various political prejudices, in which Americans generally sought to keep their war aims independent of British interference. In military terms, British timidity probably saved the Western allies from a large-scale military disaster. 3. No general disagreement. 4. Somewhat agreed, with the caveat that although lend-lease (of which the British Commonwealth supplied a large quantity, apart from the US) accounted for probably 5-7% of total Soviet war production, its usefulness in military terms was uneven. Heavy equipment such as tanks and aircraft had negligible effect on the war, whereas the large-scale provision of lorries and jeeps contributed significantly to Soviet offensive mobility in the later phases of the war. 5. It was not only Hitler who made mistakes in Russia, and some of the mistakes generally attributed to him in pop history are questionable. 6. Difficult to say, because without American (and presumably, Japanese) involvement, the entire political calculus would have been changed. War goals would have been different and perhaps a Soviet-German armistice would have been possible after prolonged stalemate. 7. Questionable, since the expansion of the war had a decisive influence on the escalation of Germany’s Jewish policies. 8. Improbable, since Stalin had no appetite for domination of Europe, and British diplomacy would have had a better chance at coming to a postwar condominium with Stalin on terms of realpolitik, without American interference. 9. The general question depends on what precisely is meant by it, and from whose perspective. American prestige in 1945 however was very high, and played a decisive role in Germany’s Western orientation during the Cold War. Whether that itself was a good thing for the world I am not so certain about. Show nested quote +how did america dominate u guys that would get compared to nazis or soviets? the u. s. didnt exploit europe or japan after the war unlike nationalist minded states or coalitions in european history. The loss of national sovereignty in Foreign Policy and Defense is de facto domination. Postwar, the United States worked to diminish the global roles of her European allies, and roll them up into a continental defense unit. The establishment of NATO was not merely a traditional alliance, it was the permanent integration of Western military command structures under American leadership, thereby eroding national military commands. For a while, American domination of SACEUR and SACLANT was tolerated by the British and French, because their global military apparatus gave them opt-outs to American control, and the structure was accepted to place restraints on German remilitarisation. As their roles in the World diminished under American pressure however, they found themselves playing the role of military auxiliaries to European defense. The British accepted this loss of sovereignty, whereas De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO's command structure, and saved French independence, at least for four decades.
1. Sure, all this is good and true but ultimately irrelevant. The key is that the US *should* have entered earlier. Which hardly anyone would disagree with.
2. So we're agreed that a '42 landing was impossible? That was the point. Again, my comments were limited and meant to represent the broad consensus.
3. -
4. -
5. Sure, I'll grant that by Hitler I mean "The German Command."
6. This was a "probably" statement in the first place, so it's not as strong a claim, for all the reasons you point out. But I think balance of probability favored the Soviets in a straight European war between them and the Nazis, and most historians I've read on the question hold some version of that opinion.
7. Do you really think Hitler winning would not have meant the deaths of millions more Jews and Slavs?
8. Stalin had plenty of appetite for domination. He took as much as he could and would absolutely have eaten the entire pie if he could have. The British would had to have settled accomodations with the Soviets, but the power the British would have held in that struggle would have been very little. The British still had an empire and navy, but the Soviets would have had a staggering amount of resources, even without a proper economic revitalization of Europe.
9. You don't think it was good there was a free part of Germany? Don't tell Nyx...
As a side note, the tensions that resulted in the Cold War were very much alive and well during WWII and in its immediate aftermath. There's a reason Patton wanted to keep the tanks rolling.
And also, you think NATO membership means not having national sovereignty? Sovereignty is about getting to make your own laws. Being in a military alliance is consistent with being sovereign. And, mind you, NATO members are very much allowed to go off and wage their own little wars, and regularly have.
|
I noticed the logistics of WWII came up and I couldn't help but think of this image...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2Yj6BXG.jpg)
At a ceremony in Dearborn, Michigan, Henry Ford is presented with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle on his 75th birthday. Henry Ford is the first American recipient of this, an honor created a year earlier by Adolf Hitler. This is the highest honor Nazi Germany could give to any foreigner and represents Adolf Hitler’s personal admiration and indebtedness to Henry Ford. The presentation is made by Karl Kapp, German consul in Cleveland, and Fritz Heller, German consular representative in Detroit. Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf”.
|
The nazis, the soviets and the capitalists are all united in their love for productivism. Beautiful.
|
Maybe we should get back to the issues that are still present, and maybe solvable.
I in principle understand how homelessness comes about, i know that even in rich western nations homelessness happens, most of the times because of bureaucratic hurdles and inability of persons in struggle to effectively engage with said bureaucracies.
What i don't understand is the amount of homelessness that is tolerated and desired in the usa to punish people for not fitting in, and the dehumanization that has to have taken place, that police can regularly confront them in ways that lead them to kill them.
I saw sentiments that people lose their right to live by breaking the law, from american posters. As if the law, and justice system was infallible and their oversight worked. They explain the terrible outcomes of the american justice system away by "unique geographic and demographic problems" which makes no sense, when you get into it. All i see is divisive retoric, lack of empathy and a principalistic refusal to do the right things even if it means to change societal norms.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lapd-shooting-20150302-story.html#page=1
|
On March 03 2015 06:02 puerk wrote:Maybe we should get back to the issues that are still present, and maybe solvable. I in principle understand how homelessness comes about, i know that even in rich western nations homelessness happens, most of the times because of bureaucratic hurdles and inability of persons in struggle to effectively engage with said bureaucracies. What i don't understand is the amount of homelessness that is tolerated and desired in the usa to punish people for not fitting in, and the dehumanization that has to have taken place, that police can regularly confront them in ways that lead them to kill them. I saw sentiments that people lose their right to live by breaking the law, from american posters. As if the law, and justice system was infallible and their oversight worked. They explain the terrible outcomes of the american justice system away by "unique geographic and demographic problems" which makes no sense, when you get into it. All i see is divisive retoric, lack of empathy and a principalistic refusal to do the right things even if it means to change societal norms. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lapd-shooting-20150302-story.html#page=1
If people were half as "Christian" or "Conservative" as they proudly proclaim to be, we wouldn't need to be killing/imprisoning so many homeless people.
A model for the nation: Utah is far from the only place with a Housing First policy, but it may be the only state to have implemented it statewide. And from New York to California, from small towns to big cities, nonprofits and municipalities are catching on and proving that the policy works.
In Charlotte, N.C., a Housing First program that served 85 homeless adults was the subject of a two-year study that found residents experienced a 78% decrease in arrests, spent 372 fewers days in a hospital and spent $1.8 million less on health care costs. Another study out of Seattle found that participants in a Housing First program cut their average use of state-run programs from $4,066 before being housed to $1,492 after.
Source
Beyond being far more humane it's also cheaper to put homeless people in homes/treatment than it is to put them in prison/ER's...
|
On March 03 2015 06:02 puerk wrote:Maybe we should get back to the issues that are still present, and maybe solvable. I in principle understand how homelessness comes about, i know that even in rich western nations homelessness happens, most of the times because of bureaucratic hurdles and inability of persons in struggle to effectively engage with said bureaucracies. What i don't understand is the amount of homelessness that is tolerated and desired in the usa to punish people for not fitting in, and the dehumanization that has to have taken place, that police can regularly confront them in ways that lead them to kill them. I saw sentiments that people lose their right to live by breaking the law, from american posters. As if the law, and justice system was infallible and their oversight worked. They explain the terrible outcomes of the american justice system away by "unique geographic and demographic problems" which makes no sense, when you get into it. All i see is divisive retoric, lack of empathy and a principalistic refusal to do the right things even if it means to change societal norms. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-lapd-shooting-20150302-story.html#page=1
I can't say I've ever heard someone say they desire homelessness to exist as punishment. Edit: I'm not sure about the 'not fitting in' comment either. A big chunk of homeless singles are veterans - hardly a 'not 'Murican enough' group.
As for comparisons, there seems to be about as many homeless in the US as in Europe:
Europe An estimated 3 million people are homeless in Europe Source: Red de Apoyo a la Integración Sociolaboral (RAIS) 2010 USA Estimated homeless figures in the United States range from 600,000 to 2.5 million Source: http://www.fas.org, 2009
Definitions vary, so direct comparisons are hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
