About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Post 40

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 12:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert: "For purposes of this post, I'm going to take your question in post #25 literally, and not as being merely rhetorical. Let me explain my own conception of "rights," why it clashes with the traditional conception, and why I therefore believe that a foreign policy of "noninterventionism" is immoral. (Yes -- immoral.) "

Usually I don't argue when this issue arises amongst Objectivists. But given the above emphasis on "immoral," I'll make an exception.

Robert, do you then believe that Founding Fathers such as George Washington, who were against military intervention in foreign affairs (while favoring free trade and travel), were actually advocating an evil viewpoint?

I wholeheartedly agree that "the basic moral principle underlying U.S. defense and foreign policy ought to be our rational self-interest: the protection of American lives, freedoms, and our ability to travel and trade freely with others." I don't think an Objectivist can claim otherwise.

However, I wholeheartedly disagree that a foreign policy of military nonintervention contradicts this basic principle. In fact, I think it's the only sensible foreign policy. (For examples, see The New American Militarism by Andrew J. Bacevich, Resurgence of the Warfare State by Robert Higgs, Terrorism and Tyranny by James Bovard, or Peace and Freedom by Ted G. Carpenter.)

I'm willing to accept disagreement with some Objectivists on this issue (and agreement with others on it). But not when the term "immoral" comes into play.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 3/27, 1:34pm)

(Edited by Jon Trager
on 3/27, 5:34pm)


Post 41

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,

Am I thinking of someone else, or aren't you an anarchist? 

If that is so, I don't understand what horse you have in this race.  I mean, are you arguing in favor of our government invading Iraq, but also holding the belief that we shouldn't have a government?


Post 42

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I wholeheartedly agree that "the basic moral principle underlying U.S. defense and foreign policy ought to be our rational self-interest: the protection of American lives, freedoms, and our ability to travel and trade freely with others." I don't think an Objectivist can claim otherwise."

I'd take issue with the 'travel' portion of that. Protecting Americans - no matter where they possibly stupidly decide to travel - is outside the scope of proper government and a recipe for becoming world police.

A laissez-faire government would certainly protect citizens within its boundaries. I'd be overjoyed if ever fortunate enough to live with such a system. If I did and yet still chose to leave its borders to visit nations with coercive governments, however, then the risk I'd assume would be my own.

Post 43

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


A laissez-faire government would certainly protect citizens within its boundaries. I'd be overjoyed if ever fortunate enough to live with such a system. If I did and yet still chose to leave its borders to visit nations with coercive governments, however, then the risk I'd assume would be my own.

Well said.


Post 44

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,

You said,
"I wholeheartedly agree that "the basic moral principle underlying U.S. defense and foreign policy ought to be our rational self-interest: the protection of American lives, freedoms, and our ability to travel and trade freely with others." I don't think an Objectivist can claim otherwise."
I believe there is a problem in this formulation.  Here are the two point that need to be examined.
1) "rational self-interest" applies to an individual, but in that formulation it is being applied to national policy and I believe that at times it has been used as if the nation had a rational self-interest apart from the citizens who have the rights.
2) Rational self-interest isn't enough by itself.  There is the more basic underlying standard of value that must be selected and the code of morals ennumerated.  Then, and not before, can you be sure that rational self-interest will work in supplying moral direction.

I believe that this is how good, caring and intelligent Objectivists have found themselves supporting militaristic adventures they otherwise would not have.  "Rational self-interest", without the foundation of man's life as the standard of value, is adrift.  It becomes easy to reach erroneous conclusions - just as it is for the Conservatives when the try to make National Security work as a guiding standard - same problem.  We all agree on security as good - for home, for person, for country.  But that isn't helpful.

With the right set of principles it never becomes which policy do I adopt - Interventionist or NonInterventionist.  It becomes a matter of applying the principles to any given situation.  Does this situation call for intevention or not? 
  • Is the threat real and imminent?
  • Is there a reasonable alternative to the use of force in self-defence that would protect our rights or avoid the threat?
  • Is the degree of force to be used in self-defense reasonable and proportionate?
If the issue of force raises its head - as a threat against us or as part of a proposal against others, always to go the concept of justified self-defense and those points I just layed out.  It will be much more illumniating then 'rational self-interest'.



Post 45

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 2:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jonathan,

Am I thinking of someone else, or aren't you an anarchist?

Well, no. But I haven't embraced government as my saviour yet either. What I mean is that I'm just a guy looking for the truth, if you will.

1. Post 41 seems pretty hostile to my entry into the discussion. Don't worry, I'm very busy right now, so I probably won't join in long-term".

2. Whether I was an anarchist or not is really irrelevant to the question at hand.

3. I was not arguing that we should have invaded Iraq, I agree with you on that point.

4. I'm not going to entertain any anarchism vs. government debates here, because

a. I don't want to hijack the thread, and
b. I began another discussion with you on another thread, and you bowed out. When I said above that I am just seeking the truth, that means that I don't have all the answers, and I haven't worked it all out. So when you took exception to one of my posts on the aforementioned thread, I can understand, it was a sloppy post, but it was not, as you implied, intellectually disingenuous. If you want to discuss it, there remain unanswered questions about the Objectivist version of government, but I would ask you to revisit the earlier thread.


Post 46

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Unprincipled Inaction

Steve,

Thanks for your post 36. The answers you give there, especially your proposition that we were not at war, show that we are working with different definitions. You seem to believe that war exists only when both sides are actively blasting away, where I say that war exists when one party commits acts of war against another whether or not the other responds.

I said that you were ranging all over the place simply because my questions were very specific and I refused to argue over Bush's handling when you seemed to want to make that the issue. You apparently wanted me to either condemn or defend Bush (a more concrete issue of statecraft) when I wanted to settle a broader point. I think this may be why you accused me of not paying attention. Perhaps you thought I was off topic - my intent was to be before or meta-topic. In any case, it is clear that we both disagree over definitions. Since I hold that a state of war exists when one state attacks or violates a ceasefire with another whether the other admits it or not, I hold that GWB was required by his oath to recognize reality and respond.

Now for an example of an unjustified act of aggression on our part, I would refer to GHWB's invasion of Panama, which although, perhaps in our long term interest, was not based on any valid legal footing of which I am aware.

Also, I am quite happy to admit that Bush's handling of the war was pathetic. It is obvious that yours and my feelings toward the man are radically different. But I thought the war was justified, and the topic of the thread was not "Bush, Six Years Later."

Finally, in regards to Mark H's claims about how England, France and the US wanted WWII for some bizarre undescribed reasons - well that's just looney.

As a concluding point, is there anything I did argue that you did agree with or did find persuasive counter to your original views? Would you at least admit that the derelict Clinton and GHWB should either have signed an actual peace treaty, have had the Senate withdraw from the ceasefire, have removed Saddam earlier? I would see such principled action as much better than the 12 years of unprincipled inacion that preceeded what I call GWB's starting to put the war to an end.

Since, as I said, I have no intent of defending Bush, and you and I hold different concepts of war (yours, of course, being wrong [smiley]) I am otherwise happy to leave the thread.

Ted

Post 47

Tuesday, March 27, 2007 - 4:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In further response to Kurt: if you think I am lying about the character of the Second World War, i.e. intentionally misrepresenting important aspects about it; or if you think I am lying about what I think about that conflict, then I suggest you read Nathaniel Branden's The Art of Living Consciously.
 
Because life is the standard of moral values, while preserving individual moral autonomy for the purpose of living is the purpose of individual rights, it follows that war between states ought to be scrupulously avoided whenever possible. This is because wars trample individual lives and property en mass, which inflicts awful and unnecessary suffering.

If one happened to live in Poland in the nineteen thirties, the prospects for avoiding war with either Russia or Germany, each commanded and controlled by murderous thugs, was non-existent. Poland--and most of Eastern Europe--had no future apart from annexation by Germany or Russia. And, as good students of history, we all know that Churchill's and FDR's Great Crusade changed nothing for Poland and its European neighbors.

My point is not that one ought to "appease dictators" from cowardice or from confusion about the source and purpose of individual rights; nor am I attempting to malign brave American and British and French soldiers who were pulled into (or pushed onto) the killing fields of Europe and the Pacific Islands. When I condemn what I think was an unnecessary war, from the standpoint of the United States, Britain and France, I do so from the perspective of defending the sacredness of individual life and happiness.

I emphasize the falsehoods of the court history of the Second World War, not because I want to pick a fight or injure the feelings of sensitive people. I do so because the falsehoods, which have been proven as such (ask me for a list of some books!), provide fraudulent cover for a war that for Britain, France, and emphatically the USA, was non-defensive and thereby illegitimate ethically. When I emphasize the lies and deceptions written into the history force fed to children in state schools, such as the "surprise attack" by Japan on Pearl Harbor, or my powerful suspicion, based on stubborn facts, that the Bush Administration has lied to us about 911, I want to make clear to war promoters the moral character of the causes they support. I do so because I want to awaken objectivist war promoters to the conflicts I see in the values they embrace.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 48

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 6:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark - I guess from your POV you did not lie - but I do believe you are delusional and espousing falsehoods as facts, so from an objective standpoint your assertions are lies.

Post 49

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt,

I've known Mark for many years and have never known him to lie.  And as a psychologist I can tell you he isn't delusional.  I'm suggesting that any disagreements be put where they ought to be... on whatever facts are at dispute.  I know Mark is sincere in his beliefs and I sense that you are as well.   


Post 50

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kurt, do yourself a favor and read William Henry Chamberlin's book America's Second Crusade. Chamberlin was a sort of "insider" in Europe in the thirties; in his capcity as a major-league journalist, he knew and talked with various key diplomatic players in the events leading up to World War II. Moreover, Chamberlin was no left wing pundit, but was a "fallen" communist whose sympathies shifted 180 degrees after seeing first hand the nature of the socialist "worker's paradise", while living as an American journalist in the Soviet Union during the twenties. His book was published in 1950 by Henry Regnery & Company, a right wing publishing house.

Nothing in my arguments about Iraq, or the history of the Second World War, or natural rights and foreign policy, clashes with your most fundamental convictions about the efficiacy of reason and the moral value of individual liberty. We agree about those important fundamentals. As such, you have it in your power to decide, based on evidence and logic, whether I happen to be misguided about all of this, or might be correct in some respects.

It should not be surprising that we have been fed falsified distorted history about the Second World War. By way of an example that we can both appreciate, consider the false history of climate change--the hockey stick curve--promoted by all of officialdom. According to this fradulent history, recent years are the hottest in all of history. But this has been proven false; there are several known intervals that featured warmer temperatures than today's, including the Medievil Optimum of just 1,000 years ago. None of this changes the story spun by court climetologists.

Moreover, political developments in the twentieth century, in the United States and the rest of the world, were dominated by a powerful tide of nihilism and collectivism that aggrandized the power of the state, and romanticised the "virtue" of this coercive power. It would be rather astonishing if the greatest political clash of that century were an idealized example of reason and ethical individualism applied to politics. It would be astonishing, because none of the players stood for those philosophical/political values! The players who pushed the US into the war were FDR and Churchill, both enamored of collectivism and both latter day Wilsonians.

Another valuable source of history of that period is on-line: Ralph Raico's historical articles which can be found at Mises,org.


Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 51

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 3:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Andre and Robert, where we disagree is not in our understanding of natural rights, nor in divergent ideas about limited government versus an ultra-minimal state (market provision of justice). I agree with most of what Robert wrote about rights, with one quibble: I think individual rights are principles that ought to guide one's social behavior. These principles are not exactly created by man for this purpose, because there is nothing optional or discretionary about rights. They reflect the requirements of man's nature; they are principles of proper behavior discovered by man and enforced for the purpose of providing people the moral space they need to live and flourish. 

I sense our disagreement boils down to esthetics. My impression is that you're both inspired by the thought of freeing the enslaved, toppling dictators, upholding moral virtue around the globe through the instrument of American foreign policy. I like freeing the oppressed and toppling dictators too, and I'm all for upholding moral virtue. But the constraints of individual rights require that the pursuit of these values be accomplished voluntarily.

So I oppose foreign military adventuring. That's why I disaprove of non-defensive foreign wars, including the fight to get Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or Noriega, or Saddam. They're vicious destructive thugs, but toppling them is the frontline responsibility of their oppressed subjects. One can donate his money and time to fight foreign bad guys, if he wants to; but we've got an oppressive state of our own to worry about. It seems to me that one's first responsibility is to free oneself, before charitably extending help to other people.

My opposition to taxation and the draft does not preclude my support for a US government military action that is authentically defensive. The present system makes voluntary financing of defense impossible, so one must rely on what we've got. But all the "threats" I read about, probably including Iran, could be best handled by disengaging our government from the affairs of other countries.  I'm unpersuaded by arguments that coercively exporting democracy and "freedom" will help preserve the lives and property of American citizens, in the USA, from foreign aggressors.

Andre's contention that fighting foreign dictators enhances our national self-interest is mistaken. Self-interest refers to one self, not to the interests of a collective. What Andre may mean by "national self-interest" is the "public good". The public good does exist, but only in the broadest sense. It is a cultural understanding and respect for reason, morality, and individual rights--values necessary for individuals to to seek to flourish.

Robert's contention that to oppose foreign military adventures is immoral is mistaken. Individuals pay an agent--a "private" agency in a free society, a bloated federal government in today's context--to provide for their defense. If payment were voluntary, the vast majority would not hire a defense agency to initiate belligerant activities abroad. They'd damn well insist that it tend to the business they hired it to perform, seeing to the protection of their own lives and property.

Foreign military adventuring therefore violates the rights of the saps who are forced to underwrite it, as well as foreign people whose lives are crushed in the conflict. If opposition to such adventuring were immoral, could one legitimately oppose taxation for this purpose? Could one oppose a military draft? Severe restrictions on business or speech? At what point should one draw the line on foreign military adventuring? At the line drawn by "national self-interest". But since military adventuring is destructive of individual rights, it can't advance the public good. It can only advance a hegemonic state.  


Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 19, No Sanction: 0
Post 52

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mark Humphrey wrote:

Andre believes that World War II was a Great and Noble American Crusade, as do neo-conservatives, leftists, and in fact nearly all Americans of today. But World War II was another coercive-utopian crusade engineered by Britain, France, and the United States for the purpose of international social reconstruction.


I almost vomited reading this, as well as it should to anyone that values the liberty they have, and that the Allied powers were defending (even an imperfect liberty the Allies have/had). I suppose when my father, when he was a 15 year old teenager living in Greece, fighting for the Greek resistance, was merely coerced by the Allied Powers for the purpose of international social reconstruction? Nevermind that my father was fighting for his life, and the protection of his village of which many were burned to the ground and all males over the age of 12 were summarily executed by the Nazis. No matter about that, my father was merely a pawn of the Allied powers wishing to thrust upon the world their perverse "version of cosmic justice" and "utopian--often blood-drenched--scheme". Although I shouldn't be shocked by this, it is typical of many Libertarians that wish to pervert the concretes of liberty and put their own disgusting grand conspiracy theory about WW2.

I can't believe that anyone would consider a collective of mostly free nations, fighting for their very survival in the face of a totalitarian regime bent on destroying any semblance of liberty, as an affront to individual rights? A regime that sought total annihilation of freedom, as opposed to the Allied Nations, with their imperfections, still stood for a far more free society than the murderous Nazis and Imperial Japanese ever did. As if France honestly engineered the invasion of their country from Germany which resulted in the total destruction of that French government?

The point that Mark Humphrey and other isolationist libertarians of their ilk don't understand is, whatever the Allies did prior to WW2, it did not matter one whit when a murderous tyrant started his rampage of terror throughout the European continent, and yet another throughout Asia. What would you have the citizens of the Allied free nations of the world do? Face annihilation because someone in their government made a foreign policy error? What did the Allies do that deserved the bloody invasion of their countries from a heinous government that gassed Jews, gypsies and homosexuals?

It's the same disgusting and repulsive argument made today against the war on terror. Nevermind that 19 terrorists barbarically murdered 3,000 innocent people, and that they had material support from one of the most oppressive nations on this planet, the more important question to libertarian isolationists is what did we do to deserve this? NOTHING that anyone did warranted such a barbaric act. Nothing justifies that kind of cruelty. Nothing justified Hitler's actions. To come up with any justification for this does nothing but excuse the most heinous form of evil humanity has ever witnessed. To acquiesce to such an evil, is itself probably more evil.

To tarnish the accomplishments of our war veterans, yes the HEROES of WW2, is beyond offensive. These men, did not die for the sake of a socially engineered utopia, they died defending the system that was the best available to them. The fight was for the survival of this system of liberty and justice, the best one on the planet Earth, against the brutality of Nazism. Mark Humphrey and his ilk would have you believe no country is worth defending unless it is a perfect utopia of liberty? Well it's a fallacy, more specifically the perfect solution fallacy. If it is a choice between keeping most of my freedoms, and losing them all, the choice is clear. The choice is to FIGHT when those freedoms, and the things we value most, are under threat of being destroyed.

As my new found hero Frank Miller put it in a recent essay for NPR:

For the first time in my life, I know how it feels to face an existential menace. They want us to die. All of a sudden I realize what my parents were talking about all those years.
Patriotism, I now believe, isn't some sentimental, old conceit. It's self-preservation. I believe patriotism is central to a nation's survival. Ben Franklin said it: If we don't all hang together, we all hang separately. Just like you have to fight to protect your friends and family, and you count on them to watch your own back.
So you've got to do what you can to help your country survive. That's if you think your country is worth a damn. Warts and all.
So I've gotten rather fond of that old piece of cloth. Now, when I look at it, I see something precious. I see something perishable.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5784518

(Edited by John Armaos on 3/28, 4:27pm)


Post 53

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John,

It looks like your emotional outrage has clouded your vision of what was said.  Nothing said takes away from your father's heroic actions.  Greece was attacked and he defended.  That is a moral and couragous thing to do.

My father volunteered for the army right after Pearl Harbor, as so many did here in the States.  He was decorated several times and wounded in the action he saw in North West Africa, Italy, France and finally in Austria.  He had the courage of his convictions and the integrity to stay with what he saw as his duty.

Hitler was evil but it wouldn't have been right for the United States to enter the war until we were attacked.  That isn't an evil position and it shouldn't make any one vomit.

As to the conspiracy theories of WWII - I don't subscribe to them.  But they don't change the principle involved.  It you aren't attacked, you don't go to war (unless of course there is a serious threat of imminent attack - that is the same as an attack for the purpose of self-defense).

The hideous degree of evil that is represented by Hitler doesn't change the equation.  We ended up partnering with Stalin who was as evil or worse.  And that doesn't change the equation either.

Terrorists have already attacked us.  I believe we should be actively at war against terrorists.  But the material support for terrorists by Iraq was insignificant - it just was not justification for that war and that war has made the real war we should be waging a pitiful effort compared to what it should be.  We are now pouring our treasure into rebuilding a nation that will not be free or democratic and will not help our war on terror which is almost non-existent - thanks in large part to our war in Iraq. 

You talked about those who would say a country must be perfect before it can be defended.  That isn't the argument at all.  Our country has NEVER been so imperfect as to not merit defense.  And it isn't an either-or: It is not either we make our country better or we defend against attackers.  We should alway do both and never attack if not in defense.

There is nothing that has been written in this thread that tarnishes the accomplishments of those who fought bravely and died for their beliefs.  If you think so, you are very mistaken.  When people die in a war they volunteered for, they die for the beliefs they held.  Their honor was never held captive by any political leader.

It is emotionally difficult for me to write this post because you speak passionately about the fight against evil.  You denounce Nazis and terrorists - who I too see as evil.  But the principle involved is the very root of freedom.  All freedom, all rights are about freedom to act.  The only way to interfere with those rights is force.  And the only time force is moral is in self-defense.  That is why it is important to make clear, unimpeachable rules to govern the release of the engines of war.  Emotional outpourings are powerful, but need to be directed against the real enemies and not in a way that allows the military to be pointed at the wrong targets or to send them out when they shouldn't be.


Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 31, No Sanction: 0
Post 54

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hitler was evil but it wouldn't have been right for the United States to enter the war until we were attacked. That isn't an evil position and it shouldn't make any one vomit.


So if Hitler invaded every nation in the world *except* the United States, it would still be unjust to attack them?

You committ the same falacy most isolationist libertarians do, mistaking the intent of the 'rule' for the letter of the 'rule'

Acting in self defense does not mean waiting until a bullet is flying at your head, nor does it mean waiting even for someone to point a gun at your head, nor does it mean waiting for a man near you waving a gun to start acting in a threatening manner to *you* when he is busy shooting your neighbors.

Acting in self defense means rationally responding to a growing threat as early as the threat is reasonably clear and acting in a reasonable manner to deal the best possible blow against your enemy.



Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 16, No Sanction: 0
Post 55

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve wrote:

Hitler was evil but it wouldn't have been right for the United States to enter the war until we were attacked.
We were attacked. Fascism was an existential foe that had to be defeated. A conquering army spreading a vile idealogy of tyranny will not stop at your next door neighbor. Our values, was under attack. Like the quote from Benjamin Franklin, we have to hang together (the allied world of free nations) or we all hang separately. You do not need to wait until it is too late to have the power to strike back and defend. According to Liberterian isolationists, the only cause for war is if your nation was massively attacked by a standing army ready to occupy. But of course that is absurd. A threat does not have to be only defined as standing in your face with a gun pointed to your head. A threat can be recognized long before it gets to such a fatally impossible situation to escape from. You don't have to wait before a potential threat becomes an actual violent attack. Especially when such a potential threat had no legitimate right to be a government, and had no right to spread a reign of terror on free individuals throughout the world.

I don't see the difference between Alabamans expressing outrage and lending support to defend a nation because NYC was attacked, and the United States expressing outrage and lending support to defend a free nation like Great Britian, and France from the throes of tyranny. Actually just about every free nation on this planet during WW2 was actually attacked.   

We hang together, or we hang separately during a time of war. My emotional outrage has clouded nothing. My emotional outrage is the logical outward manifestation of my values. Implying the men who fought bravely defending their values during WW2 did not do so out of a real threat to those values, but as Mark Humphrey suggests because of a grand conspiracy to socially engineer the world into a perverse idea of a utopia, is simply outrageous to anyone that recognizes the courage and  contribution these men made to our liberty.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 56

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 7:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
We ended up partnering with Stalin who was as evil or worse.


At the time Stalin was not routinely invading nations and bent on conquering a whole continent, so no he was not worse, and we had to deal the worst blow against an enemy that we could. Bowing down to 'ol uncle Joe *after* WWII was the biggest mistake ever made in the history of the world, Winston Churchill warned of the great communist threat till his dying day, to no avail. Many people suggested we should turn right around and attack the Soviet Union, any rational person at the time saw the growing threat it presented as much as any person can predict future events. But too many were war weary and called the proponents of attacking the Soviet Union war mongers. Sadly we might have saved almost 100 million lives and catipulted the whole of the world into an unimaginable economic prosperity.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 57

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"At the time Stalin was not routinely invading nations and bent on conquering a whole continent"

Right.. The USSR 'only' invaded Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and - jointly with the Third Reich - Poland.

The decision whether to fight the Nazis or the Soviets seems almost arbitrary, and the decision actually made may not have been the lesser evil. Had UK and France instead declared war on USSR for invading Poland we'd probably be here hearing a party line about how it was so absolutely critical the Soviets were stopped in WWII - and how Hitler wasn't really so bad even though we ended up with that 50 year cold war with the Nazis..

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 58

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hitler was evil but it wouldn't have been right for the United States to enter the war until we were attacked. That isn't an evil position and it shouldn't make any one vomit.

Let me see if I can understand the principle involved here.

Assume a situation in which you are walking down street late at night, or wandering through a deserted part of some building, and you suddenly stumble upon some innocent person being violently attacked. Perhaps it's a woman or child being raped or beaten.

First set of questions: Do you have the right to intervene, forcibly, or do you have to ignore the situation on the grounds that the criminal isn't directly attacking you?

Now, if your answer to the first set of questions is that you have no right to forcibly intervene, then let's assume that the attacker were to look at you and say, "You're next." At this point, he has not begun to actually initiate force against you; he has only threatened that he would.

Second question: Do you now have the right to intervene -- or to pre-emptively attack the thug?

Third question: If these two situations are not analogous in principle to a national defense situation in which the U.S. (assuming the existing of a volunteer military) might intervene against a tyrant or aggressor harming others, or against a tyrant threatening us with aggression, then on what grounds are these situations not analogous?

I'd like clarification on these matters before proceeding.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 59

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 - 10:59pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are some important points about the events leading up to American involvement in World War II that often get overlooked.

Britain and France were not originally targeted for conquest by Hitler. His dreams of conquest were to the East--through Eastern Europe, Poland, Checkoslovakia, into the vast empty expanses of Soviet Russia. There is plenty of evidence for this observation, made by plenty of historians. Hitler wrote about his eastward ambitions in Mein Kampf; and military observers during the thirties concluded that his military buildup was tailored for rapid expansion across the plains and steppes of Russia, rather than for an assault on heavily fortified France and Western Europe. Furthermore, Hitler attempted more than once to negotiate a peace treaty with Britain and France that would reconize Britain's dominance on the seas, that would leave intact British and French colonial possessions taken from Germany at the conclusion of WWI, and that would place Western Europe off limits to German expansion. In exchange, Hitler demanded a free hand in his plans for military invasion to the East. Churchill declined the offer.

Under Chamberlain, the British had in fact pursued a policy of neutrality with regard to Germany's determination to expand into Eastern Europe and Russia. Chamberlain reasoned that the only means of stopping Hitler's eastward ambitions was a three way alliance, consisting of Britain, France, and Soviet Russia. But France had been exhausted by the First World War, which had killed off a huge percentage of her young men, and so was reluctant to challenge Hitler's eastward expansion. Stalin offered oily assurances to Chamberlain, of his love for peace, and of his disinterest in new European possessions. But Chamberlain was mistrustful, knowing full well that Stalin's record was bloody and treacherous on a scale, even at that time, unprecedented in history. Chamberlin reasoned that if Hitler invaded Eastern Europe and Russia, then the two Totalitarian Devils could fight themselves into exhaustion, while Britain and France conserved their resources for any subsequent confrontation.

Unfortunately, Chamberlain lost courage under heated and repeated political attacks by Churchill and other British war hawks. And so, when Hitler chose to interpret the munich agreement as a renunciation by britain and France of any further interest in Eastern Europe, as opposed to the Allied interpretation that the agreement represented the final settlement of Germany's territorial claims in the wake of Versailles, Chamberlain reversed direction. This reversal consisted of a guarantee issued to Poland against attack--a guarantee that neither Britain or France had the military capability to enforce. It is reasonable to conclude that, had Britain and France been willing to disengage from eastern Europe, leaving the area as a battleground for the looming clash between Hitler and Stalin, that Britain and France would could have remained out of the war.

One reason for Churchill's enthusiasm for locking horns with Hitler, aside from Churchill's infatuation with the "romance" of war, including of World War One, was FDR's active telegraphing of his support. On two occasions prior to the outbreak of hostilities, FDR sent secret emmisaries to Britain and France offering illegal assurances that the United States would inevitably join them in their fight against Germany. This would have come as a surprise to American voters, who had reelected Roosevelt to a third term on his promise of No War, and who consistently opposed American invovement in Europe's quarrels by lopsided 85 or 90 to 10 margins.

After Germany broke through the French line neart Sedan in 1940, the German army drove to the rear of the British and French forces, rendering their strategic position hopeless and forcing their retreat into the sea at Dunkirk. Some French and most the british troops managed to evacuate across the Channel, but at the cost of abandoning their heavy equipment. The disaster would have been worse had not Hitler issued direct orders to his armoured divisions to refrain from attacking Dunkirk during the three day evacuation. As one of Hitler's key staff members, General Blummentritt, later wrote, the German officers were astonished at Hitler's expression of admiration for the British Empire, of the civilization that britain had brought the world, of his desire to forge peace with Britain that would recognize Germany's position on the Continent.

On another occasion, when the Allied military fortunes were at low ebb and France appealed for armistice, von Ribbontrop expressed to Italian Foreign Minister Count Cieno that Hitler did not desire the destruction of the British Empire, which was a source of stability in the world; that the Fuher wanted to negotiate a peace with Britain.

After Dunkirk, Hitler again appealed to Churchill for a negotiated peace, and pressed his appeal through private diplomatic overtures through Sweden, the US and the Vatican. But Churchill refused, for his object was not to save the British navy and preserve the Empire, but to destroy Hitler and reconquer the Continent. Germany began bombing London in September, 1940, in reprisal for England's six successive night attacks on Berlin civilian populations. Soon after Churchill's refusal to negotiate peace, Hitler commenced Operation Sea Lion, a hastily arranged invasion plan that gathered a wide assortment of civilian fishing boats, barges, etc. to cross the Channel. Hitler had no previous plans for an invasion of England across the Channel, and his gernerals thought Operation Sea Lion was lunacy. After Germany failed to dominate in the air over Britain, prior to American Lendlease, Hitler abandoned his half-hearted invasion preparations, and threw his army at his primary goal: the invasion of Stalin's Soviet Union.

After the fall of Germany, no evidence was discovered in official Nazi archives of any plans to invade the United States. Hitler was incapable of invading Great Britain across 70 miles of the English Channel. The idea that Hitler's socialist Germany was in a position to menace American freedom, across 3,000 miles of the Atlantic Ocean, is absurd.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.