|
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 08:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 08:09 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956? I think it's pretty archaic to determine a countries sovereignty by their ability to wage war. We've had enough war for a millennium on the continent. Countries were okay with US "dictating" Western policies because we honestly had better things to do then to start the next imperial adventure. This "Germany is an American vassal state" talk borders more on conspiracy than history. It's somewhat amusing that EU idealists think that they are incarnating a new idea, when they have simply switched roles with 19th century America on the global stage. This merely borders on a special plea in justification of impotence, when the superintending power conceives of itself, and its role in the world in Hegelian terms. We know that this is simply the idea stooping to fit the reality, since there is no consistency in the view that one set of acts is unacceptable for Germany, Britain or France, yet the same set of acts is acceptable when performed by the United States. This is not the triumph of an idealistic principle; this is merely political fatalism, a sense of resignation that your people are diminished to the status of a minor power in the world, and inventing the justification to fit the impression.
Trying to be a cultural and political instead of a militaristic power is not impotence or desperation, it's a step forward. You sound like Mann in Reflections of an Unpolitical Man, claiming how great and "revitalizing" war is for a nation. It's a pretty fucked up ideology do defend honestly, because that kind of romanticism is arguably the birth-point of European nationalism that dragged the nations on this continent into war over and over.
|
Even I thought that was stupid. I think the federal investigations into police departments themselves shed far more light on the issues.
Without outright admitting they were regularly violating rights they pretty much all admitted they needed to change behavior/policy/training.
I don't know who could think the police aren't using discriminatory practices in various places. Someone doesn't have to be intentionally or consciously using racist motives in order to discriminate against certain people.
Some studies point at how the rate of 'getting off' is one of the more nuanced ways white privilege and discrimination manifests in modern times.
The police forces of the US need some significant improvement in the civil rights/discrimination area, denying that is just burying one's head in the sand.
|
On March 03 2015 09:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 08:29 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 03 2015 08:09 Nyxisto wrote:On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote:
Which wars have been waged by a NATO member which was not the US, and without American consent or acquiescence since 1956? I think it's pretty archaic to determine a countries sovereignty by their ability to wage war. We've had enough war for a millennium on the continent. Countries were okay with US "dictating" Western policies because we honestly had better things to do then to start the next imperial adventure. This "Germany is an American vassal state" talk borders more on conspiracy than history. It's somewhat amusing that EU idealists think that they are incarnating a new idea, when they have simply switched roles with 19th century America on the global stage. This merely borders on a special plea in justification of impotence, when the superintending power conceives of itself, and its role in the world in Hegelian terms. We know that this is simply the idea stooping to fit the reality, since there is no consistency in the view that one set of acts is unacceptable for Germany, Britain or France, yet the same set of acts is acceptable when performed by the United States. This is not the triumph of an idealistic principle; this is merely political fatalism, a sense of resignation that your people are diminished to the status of a minor power in the world, and inventing the justification to fit the impression. Trying to be a cultural and political instead of a militaristic power is not impotence or desperation, it's a step forward. You sound like Mann in Reflections of an Unpolitical Man, claiming how great and "revitalizing" war is for a nation. It's a pretty fucked up ideology do defend honestly, because that kind of romanticism is arguably the birth-point of European nationalism that dragged the nations on this continent into war over and over.
That was not Mann's argument in Reflections, and ironically, Mann identified himself with the German cause in that war precisely because of his identification of Germany as a kulturstaat, the idea of which had to be defended. German rejection of democracy on the same grounds that Germans rejected politics as a means of self-expression.
P.S. I do think that classical German views require more airing on the most fundamental levels in our heavily mechanistic and bureaucratized condition. The "romantic" German idea of freedom as a task, and not as a right, for instance, would be a breath of fresh air in our age of decrepit and feudalised political sloganeering.
|
Squandering a GOP Majority
The sad if predictable irony is that this is exactly what Mr. Obama hoped to incite with his November immigration order. He wanted to goad an overreaction that made the GOP look both anti-immigrant and intemperate enough to shut down the government.
The double irony is that, in shutting down part of DHS, the Republicans would also give Mr. Obama an opening to claim the political high ground on national security. He’d blame the GOP for putting at risk the defenses against a terrorist threat that his own policies have allowed to proliferate.
Mr. Boehner has made mistakes, one of which is bending too much to the shutdown caucus. But let’s say the no-compromise crowd did succeed in humiliating the Speaker, and he resigned. What then? Whom do coup plotters want to put in charge?
Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan has support across the House GOP, but why would he want to run a majority that is hostage to the whim of 50 Members who care more about appeasing talk radio than achieving conservative victories?
Republicans need to do some soul searching about the purpose of a Congressional majority, including whether they even want it. If they really think Mr. Boehner is the problem, then find someone else to do his thankless job. If not, then start to impose some order and discipline and advance the conservative cause rather than self-defeating rebellion.
Source
|
On March 03 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.
Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.
Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry. For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans? 7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same?
From where the fuck do you get "hate" for the US? The hardest language i used was that i do not understand the cited attitudes towards homelesspeople that occur in the US.
Please stop projecting your own insecurity on others. Just because i don't like what happened in LA and Florida does not mean that i hate the US.
Why should i as a German go to an american(centric) video game forum to discuss German homelessness? That makes no fucking sense or do you think there are no places where Germans can discuss issues and politics? As i said earlier: i brought that issue up because of a shooting in LA (which i cited in my first post on the issue). Yet you make it out that if i don't call out homelessness in every other country that is not the US in the US politics thread i am a hypocrite or something.....
Regarding: "Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue." exactly its also a societal attitude issue of compassion. And Germany as well as the US lack behind in that regard sorely.
I just realized i made a big mistake talking about an American problem when i based that on issues in California and Florida. California alone has about 2,5 times more unsheltered homeless than Germany with half the population. So please excuse me for generalizing that glaring problem i saw there to the nation. In further research i realized some states seem to do a much better job than Germany.
|
On March 03 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.
Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.
Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry. For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans? 7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same?
The German and US economies can't really be compared.
The German economy is much more reliant on exports and its population has a much more equal distribution of wealth compared to the US.
|
And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed.
if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans
The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age.
During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility."
Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war.
If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really.
|
On March 03 2015 10:11 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.
Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.
Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry. For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans? 7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same? From where the fuck do you get "hate" for the US? The hardest language i used was that i do not understand the cited attitudes towards homelesspeople that occur in the US. Please stop projecting your own insecurity on others. Just because i don't like what happened in LA and Florida does not mean that i hate the US. Why should i as a German go to an american(centric) video game forum to discuss German homelessness? That makes no fucking sense or do you think there are no places where Germans can discuss issues and politics? As i said earlier: i brought that issue up because of a shooting in LA (which i cited in my first post on the issue). Yet you make it out that if i don't call out homelessness in every other country that is not the US in the US politics thread i am a hypocrite or something..... Regarding: "Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue." exactly its also a societal attitude issue of compassion. And Germany as well as the US lack behind in that regard sorely. I just realized i made a big mistake talking about an American problem when i based that on issues in California and Florida. California alone has about 2,5 times more unsheltered homeless than Germany with half the population. So please excuse me for generalizing that glaring problem i saw there to the nation. In further research i realized some states seem to do a much better job than Germany.
I was satirizing your previous posts with the hate stuff.
In your first posts you claimed that homelessness was both an unusually bad problem in the US and one that people here don't care about. You haven't shown that to be true, so why did you say it? To be provocative? To troll? Because you dislike the US? What?
|
On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. Show nested quote +if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really.
What about the 10 million Leopold killed off in the Congo alone? Hands and feet were chopped off by the thousands. What about the millions worked to death for a (semi-)personal imperial fortune?
http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905
In terms of proportion, focusing on deaths that explicitly occurred within European war theatres is a bit silly.
|
On March 03 2015 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 10:11 puerk wrote:On March 03 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.
Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.
Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry. For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans? 7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same? From where the fuck do you get "hate" for the US? The hardest language i used was that i do not understand the cited attitudes towards homelesspeople that occur in the US. Please stop projecting your own insecurity on others. Just because i don't like what happened in LA and Florida does not mean that i hate the US. Why should i as a German go to an american(centric) video game forum to discuss German homelessness? That makes no fucking sense or do you think there are no places where Germans can discuss issues and politics? As i said earlier: i brought that issue up because of a shooting in LA (which i cited in my first post on the issue). Yet you make it out that if i don't call out homelessness in every other country that is not the US in the US politics thread i am a hypocrite or something..... Regarding: "Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue." exactly its also a societal attitude issue of compassion. And Germany as well as the US lack behind in that regard sorely. I just realized i made a big mistake talking about an American problem when i based that on issues in California and Florida. California alone has about 2,5 times more unsheltered homeless than Germany with half the population. So please excuse me for generalizing that glaring problem i saw there to the nation. In further research i realized some states seem to do a much better job than Germany. I was satirizing your previous posts with the hate stuff. In your first posts you claimed that homelessness was both an unusually bad problem in the US and one that people here don't care about. You haven't shown that to be true, so why did you say it? To be provocative? To troll? Because you dislike the US? What?
Because the situation is exactly as problematic and bad as i claimed in California, which was my starting point, and link in the first post, it was my mistake of generalizing that to the US and i already apologized for that, what the fuck is your problem?
|
He's a Massachusetts Republican, that's his problem 
|
On March 03 2015 11:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really. What about the 10 million Leopold killed off in the Congo alone? Hands and feet were chopped off by the thousands. What about the millions worked to death for a (semi-)personal imperial fortune? http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905In terms of proportion, focusing on deaths that explicitly occurred within European war theatres is a bit silly.
Leopold's personal rule over Belgium was an anomaly since it was a personal enterprise, and not a colony, and also in the sense that the responsible authorities largely pursued a policy of evasion of European norms, in particular with regard to slavery. Public awareness put an end to personal rule under pressure from the European Congress, a resolution preferable, one might argue, to "humanitarian interventionism."
|
On March 03 2015 11:58 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2015 10:11 puerk wrote:On March 03 2015 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On March 03 2015 08:39 puerk wrote:
Yes homelessness is a particularly bad problem in the US. GDP per capita is about 25% higher than Germanys, yet if you use the same measure and definition for a comparison german long term homelessness (according to your source) is at 24.000 and for the US it is 100.000. so your rate is about 7% higher, despite the much stronger economy.
Of course it is subjective if that is a problem - for me it is a problem, for you it is apparently fine. ok.
Edit: found newer data and updated the values. sorry. For me homelessness in the US and Germany are a problem and I have never said otherwise. Yet you don't care at all about the homeless in Germany. Why are you and the rest of Germany so heartless towards your fellow Germans? Why does hate for the US make it OK for you to also hate your fellow Germans? 7% isn't much of a difference. Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue. Also, please share your data. Which source are you citing and how are you making sure definitions are the same? From where the fuck do you get "hate" for the US? The hardest language i used was that i do not understand the cited attitudes towards homelesspeople that occur in the US. Please stop projecting your own insecurity on others. Just because i don't like what happened in LA and Florida does not mean that i hate the US. Why should i as a German go to an american(centric) video game forum to discuss German homelessness? That makes no fucking sense or do you think there are no places where Germans can discuss issues and politics? As i said earlier: i brought that issue up because of a shooting in LA (which i cited in my first post on the issue). Yet you make it out that if i don't call out homelessness in every other country that is not the US in the US politics thread i am a hypocrite or something..... Regarding: "Yes the US is richer but homelessness isn't strictly an economic issue." exactly its also a societal attitude issue of compassion. And Germany as well as the US lack behind in that regard sorely. I just realized i made a big mistake talking about an American problem when i based that on issues in California and Florida. California alone has about 2,5 times more unsheltered homeless than Germany with half the population. So please excuse me for generalizing that glaring problem i saw there to the nation. In further research i realized some states seem to do a much better job than Germany. I was satirizing your previous posts with the hate stuff. In your first posts you claimed that homelessness was both an unusually bad problem in the US and one that people here don't care about. You haven't shown that to be true, so why did you say it? To be provocative? To troll? Because you dislike the US? What? Because the situation is exactly as problematic and bad as i claimed in California, which was my starting point, and link in the first post, it was my mistake of generalizing that to the US and i already apologized for that, what the fuck is your problem?
I'm still waiting on a source for your claims. You also attacked me personally multiple times. But whatever, I have beer now so it's cool 
MA also has more homeless than average iirc. We also house the homeless as best we can, even using hotels and motels if necessary even though that's expensive. That probably draws in homeless from neighbor states (we're small geographically) which makes our figures look worse. Culturally how the homeless are treated here depends on the context. Play a guitar on Main St. NoHo looking for tips and you're part of the charm. Ask for change at night in Springfield and people will fear a mugging.
Broadly, on the policy side of things homelessness has been declining for a number of years now. Bush had some good policies on the issue (no joke), and Obama has added to it (unsurprisingly).
As for American culture on the issue, I was just reminded of Ted Williams of 'Golden Voice' fame. A few years back he was homeless, his story went viral and people threw a lot of money at him. It didn't solve all of his problems though. I'm sure you can find things to criticize about the US there, but I don't think 'we don't care' is one of them. Story link.
On March 03 2015 12:03 farvacola wrote:He's a Massachusetts Republican, that's his problem
Only one of many 
|
On March 03 2015 12:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 11:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really. What about the 10 million Leopold killed off in the Congo alone? Hands and feet were chopped off by the thousands. What about the millions worked to death for a (semi-)personal imperial fortune? http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905In terms of proportion, focusing on deaths that explicitly occurred within European war theatres is a bit silly. Leopold's personal rule over Belgium was an anomaly since it was a personal enterprise, and not a colony, and also in the sense that the responsible authorities largely pursued a policy of evasion of European norms, in particular with regard to slavery. Public awareness put an end to personal rule under pressure from the European Congress, a resolution preferable, one might argue, to "humanitarian interventionism."
It does seem a bit contradictory for one who seems to oppose the hegemony of the US over Europe in the post-war period to argue that European (British, in particular, if you like) hegemony over the Indian subcontinent, Far East, and stretches of coastal Africa was desirable. Sovereignty is only valuable to those deemed "civilized" enough? Or just those capable of killing enough other Europeans? If you are for the multi-polar Europe with a strong independent Germany, it just seems a bit nationalistic (racist?) to argue in favor of imperialism by citing its ability to impose "peace."
|
On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. Show nested quote +if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really.
For a very selective meaning of world peace.
For starters, the Napoleonic wars were in the 19th century, in Europe. You are thus explicitly choosing the time between Napoleon's defeat and the start of the 1st world war. During that time, there was a decline in power of one of the major players in the European theater: the Ottoman empire, and plenty of small(ish) wars being fought as they relinquished power. The Crimean war is probably the most famous. There is also the unification of Italy, which was hardly peaceful, and some other minor wars, like the Belgian war for independence.
That said, the European powers were far more interested in maintaining and expanding power through other means (mainly dividing up the rest of the world between them). So most wars European countries were involved in wars in the colonies (such as the Opium wars and the Spanish losing all their South American colonies, or the Boer war).
So even just look at wars including the European powers, it was hardly peaceful. And that's disregarding brutal wars like the ones you already mentioned that did not involve European countries directly.
|
On March 03 2015 12:38 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 12:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 03 2015 11:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really. What about the 10 million Leopold killed off in the Congo alone? Hands and feet were chopped off by the thousands. What about the millions worked to death for a (semi-)personal imperial fortune? http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905In terms of proportion, focusing on deaths that explicitly occurred within European war theatres is a bit silly. Leopold's personal rule over Belgium was an anomaly since it was a personal enterprise, and not a colony, and also in the sense that the responsible authorities largely pursued a policy of evasion of European norms, in particular with regard to slavery. Public awareness put an end to personal rule under pressure from the European Congress, a resolution preferable, one might argue, to "humanitarian interventionism." It does seem a bit contradictory for one who seems to oppose the hegemony of the US over Europe in the post-war period to argue that European (British, in particular, if you like) hegemony over the Indian subcontinent, Far East, and stretches of coastal Africa was desirable. Sovereignty is only valuable to those deemed "civilized" enough? Or just those capable of killing enough other Europeans? If you are for the multi-polar Europe with a strong independent Germany, it just seems a bit nationalistic (racist?) to argue in favor of imperialism by citing its ability to impose "peace."
I have never championed diversity or sovereignty as an absolute principle, applicable to every nation and tribe, or the innate value of every clay pot and pagan idol. I have never even argued that British hegemony in India or European possessions in Africa were desirable. Those are incidental features of the 19th century world, but quite optional to what I am talking about. The European System I refer to was not a monolithic entity, and not a Latin Republic, it was an international body with limited membership but among whom there existed an authentic pluralism of interests. Realistically, there is no such thing as unlimited independence or sovereignty in the lives of small nations. The difference however, between a Congress system and a Hegemonic system is the difference between elections in a one-party state and a five-party state.
For a very selective meaning of world peace.
For starters, the Napoleonic wars were in the 19th century, in Europe. You are thus explicitly choosing the time between Napoleon's defeat and the start of the 1st world war. During that time, there was a decline in power of one of the major players in the European theater: the Ottoman empire, and plenty of small(ish) wars being fought as they relinquished power. The Crimean war is probably the most famous. There is also the unification of Italy, which was hardly peaceful, and some other minor wars, like the Belgian war for independence.
That said, the European powers were far more interested in maintaining and expanding power through other means (mainly dividing up the rest of the world between them). So most wars European countries were involved in wars in the colonies (such as the Opium wars and the Spanish losing all their South American colonies, or the Boer war).
So even just look at wars including the European powers, it was hardly peaceful. And that's disregarding brutal wars like the ones you already mentioned that did not involve European countries directly.
The historical 19th century is not identical to the chronological 19th century. Historians generally refer to the former as the period between the Peace of Paris and the outbreak of the First World War. During that 19th century, there were five Great Power wars of limited intensity: The Austro-Prussian war, the Franco-Prussian war, the Austro-Sardinian war, the Crimean War, and the Russo-Japanese war. In neither human costs nor duration nor ultimate impact on Western civilisation could they be reckoned as Great Wars.
This was due to their character as more or less traditional cabinet wars, in which the participants had limited war aims involving concrete state interests, rather than the ideological total wars of the French Revolution and the 20th century, or the absurd post-9/11 wars to spread democracy and women's rights. Those wars produced no polarising armed camps, no permanent national enmities, no legacy of revanchism to linger on as eternal obsessions. The Franco-Prussian war is the only (and partial exception), but this was a consequence of Bismarck's postwar system as much as the war itself.
|
On March 03 2015 14:36 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 12:38 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2015 12:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On March 03 2015 11:56 IgnE wrote:On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really. What about the 10 million Leopold killed off in the Congo alone? Hands and feet were chopped off by the thousands. What about the millions worked to death for a (semi-)personal imperial fortune? http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905In terms of proportion, focusing on deaths that explicitly occurred within European war theatres is a bit silly. Leopold's personal rule over Belgium was an anomaly since it was a personal enterprise, and not a colony, and also in the sense that the responsible authorities largely pursued a policy of evasion of European norms, in particular with regard to slavery. Public awareness put an end to personal rule under pressure from the European Congress, a resolution preferable, one might argue, to "humanitarian interventionism." It does seem a bit contradictory for one who seems to oppose the hegemony of the US over Europe in the post-war period to argue that European (British, in particular, if you like) hegemony over the Indian subcontinent, Far East, and stretches of coastal Africa was desirable. Sovereignty is only valuable to those deemed "civilized" enough? Or just those capable of killing enough other Europeans? If you are for the multi-polar Europe with a strong independent Germany, it just seems a bit nationalistic (racist?) to argue in favor of imperialism by citing its ability to impose "peace." I have never championed diversity or sovereignty as an absolute principle, applicable to every nation and tribe, or the innate value of every clay pot and pagan idol. I have never even argued that British hegemony in India or European possessions in Africa were desirable. Those are incidental features of the 19th century world, but quite optional to what I am talking about. The European System I refer to was not a monolithic entity, and not a Latin Republic, it was an international body with limited membership but among whom there existed an authentic pluralism of interests. Realistically, there is no such thing as unlimited independence or sovereignty in the lives of small nations. The difference however, between a Congress system and a Hegemonic system is the difference between elections in a one-party state and a five-party state.
Authentic pluralism of interests among whom? If you asked the south Asian peoples whether there was an authentic pluralism of interests governing them as a colony of the crown you would be hard pressed to make a case. That is, the British Raj was a "monolithic entity" at least insofar as there ever was a "monolithic entity," and I am presuming here that you think the "American interests" that have dominated world affairs since 1945, and even more so since the 1980s, qualifies. If you want to wax on about the beautiful European symphony being played on a "world stage" amongst and between colonies, continents, and countries, you would be ignoring more than half the world's population, who were essentially captive peoples to these imperial powers. The supposed differences and pluralisms likely went unnoticed in the alien assault on the local cultures. Comparing colonial gamesmanship to a congress with elections is ridiculous. The colonies didn't choose their colonial overlords. Unlimited independence in the lives of "small nations" means what here? Certainly not nations with a small population. It appears you only mean those nations that were worst at waging war against the brutal Europeans.
|
On March 03 2015 09:23 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2015 08:37 WhiteDog wrote:On March 03 2015 07:49 MoltkeWarding wrote: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. The contemporary myth that the Soviet Union planned to pre-emptively attack Germany is on account of a single book, Suvorov's Icebreaker, a book which incidentally, not only lacks documentary evidence to support its claims, but is contradicted by the work of traditional diplomatic historians covering the 1940-41 period. Although I haven't researched the subject myself, the central thesis, that Germany in June 1941 attacked into the jaws of an offensive Soviet deployment seems to be completely contradicted by the experience of Barbarossa, in which Germany encountered a defensive deployment in depth. More proximately, Stalin's orders to the front prior to Barbarossa: ignore German overhead flights, ignore German border incursions, no return of fire even in the event of cross-border firing, as well as his obsequious behaviour to the German ambassador in Moscow, and his diplomatic capitulations on Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, the intensification of trade shipments to Germany on the eve of the invasion, all suggest that the traditional narrative is correct: Stalin was dreadfully afraid of provoking a German invasion, either in consequence of British manipulations, or in consequence of an "anti-Soviet" clique in the German military establishment taking matters into their own hands. That's untrue, it's not on the account of a single book... A quick search on the internet would show you that overall historian agree that Stalin made preparation for a possible war in europe : what the historian disagree with in the book you cited is that the German attacked preemptively... Here is another book that support this idea. Putting aside every fact that doesn't go in your way and pointing out specific events and painting them in the color that fit your narrative is not really history. By the way, the simple existence of the barbarossa contredict your points : if the german attacked, it means they intended to dominate europe outside of their perimeter (the great germany or whatever). If they attacked for self defence, it mean that they believe Russia would attempt to dominate europe. Both ways are okay to me (altho most historian would say the second vision is false). I haven't read Meltiyukhov's book, but on a quick glance, I don't see any indication that he uses any sources different from the ones alleged by Suvorov, namely the inference from the Zhukov plans of May 1941 that there was a political intention to attack the German Reich. This can be backed up by a ton of circumstancial evidence, surrounding the tightening of Soviet armed preparations in April-May 1941. This was in a great deal of reaction to Hitler's ominous silences towards Russia in his April speeches, in consequence of which Stalin made several cautionary domestic speeches, civilians were being shifted out of the frontier areas, circular transmissions of warnings to Soviet consulates abroad, etc. If however, the mobilisation of Soviet preparatory measures had an offensive, rather than a defensive measure, how does one account for the opposite impressions gained on the diplomatic front? Throughout April and May, Soviet appeasement of Germany intensified. In April the USSR recognised Rashid Ali's regime in Iraq, and in May she withdrew recognition from the Western governments in exile. In June, Stalin ramped up direct contacts with Hungarian, Rumanian and Finnish ministers and Moscow. Finally, on June 19th, there was Molotov's summons of Schulenburg. The German minutes deserve full citation: Show nested quote +There were a number of indications that the German Government was dissatisfied with the Soviet Government. Rumors were even current that a war was impending between Germany and the Soviet Union. They found sustenance in the fact that there was no reaction whatsoever on the part of Germany to the TASS report of June 13 (the report referred to was a denial of Soviet-German frictions and war rumours) that it was not even published in Germany. The Soviet Government was unable to understand the reasons for Germany's dissatisfaction. If the Yugoslav question had at the time given rise to such dissatisfaction, he - Molotov - believed that, by means of his earlier communications, he had cleared up this question, which, moreover, was a thing of the past. He would appreciate it if Schulenburg could tell him what had brought about the present situation in German-Soviet Russian relations. If Stalin had sincerely plotted a pre-emptive German attack, how does one account for his breakdown in June 1941, or his immediate search for peace feelers through Bulgarian intermediaries? The entire contention that Barbarossa proves some kind of overweening German ambition does not corroborate anything, since it refuses to take into account the German rationale, and the German decision-making process which led to the final decision taken in early 1941. Germany's invasion of Russia was planned upon strategic-political lines, not ideological ones. It was motivated by a desire to eliminate Russia from the military-political equation in Europe, and thereby compel the British to make peace with Germany. In this, Hitler's turn towards Russia was not so different from Napoleon's motives in 1812. Also, I would appreciate a halt to allegations of historical bias, when I am not the one google-researching to defend a particular narrative.
1. Meltiyukhov's sources are completly different from Suvorov : it's based on archives (most notably classified archives). Meltiyukhov is a russian historian and a specialist on the subject, Suvorov was just an ex soviet secret agent bound on defending his new home in the west during the cold war.
2. Meltiyukhov adress the point about the breakdown. The Soviet never really forecasted an attack on the USSR from Germany (just like Germany never forecasted Stalin's plan to attack on the US). There are even plan on the USSR invasion on Germany, division by division (140 or 160 division to run throughout eastern europe against the 100 nazi division stationned on the way).
3. Really your view on Barbarossa is quite funny. So basically the nazi and the USSR wage war against each other on some... misunderstanding ? The german misread the USSR desire to attack them ? And strategically reacted ? And the entire 2nd WW is a complete misunderstanding too right ? The german just wanted to be free and happy in their little garden ? In your head, it seems like without the US the nazi and the USSR would have come to a peaceful settlement... Like really ? At some point you've got to look objectively at reality. I'm all for imagination and utopia, but they're here to make things possible, not to blindly lure yourself into a shithole. Your entire vision is defined by the modern situation, and not by what happened at that time. Fighting dominating powers by idealizing old dominating powers is the best way to make history repeat itself.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 03 2015 11:21 MoltkeWarding wrote:And since we need to continually give oneofthem access to information going beyond generalities, I'll take this one too that I missed. Show nested quote +if only that characterization of pre-american domination was accurate. what with all the blacks browns and yellows getting ignored by pomerania. europeans did all that colonialism stuff, and competition and strategic concern over colonies led to very bloody conflicts everywhere in the world
europeans marching into war may be fun for EU4 players, maybe the european nobility, but it wasnt fun for actual europeans The "colonialist" era of the 19th century was the longest stretch of general world peace in the modern age. During the 19th century the bourgeois-liberals were the generally most enthusiastic proponents of Imperialism, not "the nobility." Most of the lands gained by European nations in the colonial rush of the Victorian era were gained without large-scale bloodshed. Rivalry in overseas territories, although producing several war scares, produced no wars between the European Powers in the 19th century, if one excludes the the Turkish question, and the Spanish-American war. If you think about it, the lion's share of militant killing was inflicted by those "blacks browns and yellows" upon themselves, as the bloodiest wars in the 19th century were the Taiping Rebellion, the Mfecane and the Mahdist wars. In two of these wars, European arms intervened to restore peace to the region. In terms of proportion of the population killed, it was probably the Paraguay War. In terms of numbers killed in a white-on-white war, it was the American Civil War. Failed Aesop, really. you are on some strong shit there.
this is just colonialism btw, not including all the stuff the europeans were doing on the european continent itself.
|
Back to politics, NYT does a hit piece on Hillary Clinton:
Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.
Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.
It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Her expansive use of the private account was alarming to current and former National Archives and Records Administration officials and government watchdogs, who called it a serious breach.
Mr. Merrill, the spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, declined to detail why she had chosen to conduct State Department business from her personal account. He said that because Mrs. Clinton had been sending emails to other State Department officials at their government accounts, she had “every expectation they would be retained.” He did not address emails that Mrs. Clinton may have sent to foreign leaders, people in the private sector or government officials outside the State Department.
The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.
Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.
It's a problem for both ends, that her e-mail may not have been secure and thus open to breach by hackers but it also allows her to selectively hide e-mails that might be embarrassing or damaging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
