Homeschooling: Don't do it Germany!

[Ubereil]

And let's take a deeper look. After seeing Finland, Norway, and Denmark get gobbled up by Germany or Russia, the Swedes chose to play nice under the guise of neutrality, allowing Germany access to their railroad system and selling them products for the military such as food and raw materials. You continued to knuckle under until the Allies called you on this game in 1943. Since the tides of war favored the Allies at that point, you effectively switched sides while still proclaiming neutrality. Remind me where the beacon of enlightenment is there? You played lapdog to whichever side had the most power at the time. And that qualifies you do judge freedom? You jest, yes?

Yeah, we were wusses two generations ago (here, have some more proof of that). Would we have done the same thing today, though?

On a side note, guess why we're so proud of our wellfare state.

(Answer: because our foreign policy's been a disgrase.)

Übereil

 

[Rithrandil]

So would you say American forces sitting in Europe from 1945-1989 *(which dte's taxes definitely went to support) was worth zilch? Just curious.

 

[dteowner]

I think someone need to get some basics straight. I do not believe you have the capacity to grasp the following concept, but try hard;

It's 2010, not 1945.
This is a guess: YOU didn't help back in 1945.
This is what I know: I wasn't around in 1945.

Not only have there been three generations between then and now, the entire society have been revamped so much that there's barely a trace left of that nation.

Based on your logic, if you are 70 you are responsible for what you did when you were five. You are also responsible for what your grandparents did or did not do.

I do not share that logic. But I do know mankind grows with experience so yes, I am qualified to judge nationalism. I am as qualified as any preteen who just begun to learn history.

Ooo, I do enjoy questioning intellect. Let's slap those salamis on the table and break out the metre stick, eh? I'll try to take it slow so I don't lose ya. If we accept your initial argument (the one about having to personally "be there" to take credit for a lesson, not the one questioning my chasm-esque dearth of understanding, which was woefully unsupported, if I do say so), then you are not personally responsible for the lessons learned in your vaunted history books either. Therefore, either your dismissal of my qualifications is utterly invalid (I accept your apology) or your evidence of your qualifications is utterly invalid (guess yer just another dumbass like me). Which choice do you prefer, Perfessor?

 

[Ubereil]

Therefore, either your dismissal of my qualifications is utterly invalid (I accept your apology) or your evidence of your qualifications is utterly invalid.

What qualifications are you talking about?

Übereil

 

[dteowner]

Yeah, we were wusses two generations ago (here, have some more proof of that). Would we have done the same thing today, though?

On a side note, guess why we're so proud of our wellfare state.

(Answer: because our foreign policy's been a disgrase.)

Übereil

I'm actually not interested in indicting an entire country, Ubereil. While Sweden probably didn't earn any experience in their paladin class for that campaign, the "game" they played might have been the best choice for the nation at the time. Unlike JemyM, I wouldn't have the arrogance to pass judgment. Opinions, perhaps, but definitely not judgment.

 

[noctrun]

Iraq was for the oil. And the weapons lobby also wanted their election campaign money back.

Let's hope that's true. The reason allegedly given in the memoirs of Jacques Chirac is far too scary.

I really don't recall hearing "Let's invade Iraq because we're America and we are invading Iraq". Perhaps you could provide some examples?

Actually the American invasion of Iraq could serve as one example, just look at the only remaining official reason for the war: Saddam was a bad guy, so it was right for America to invade. Oil is a bad reason, but it would at least have been a reason.

I know that was the Bush administration, and most of the examples I could think of are related to them. And I was delighted that the majority of Amercians voted for change, even though it may not be delivered just as promised.

Difficult question. JemyM was the first to say the naughty "N" word, nationalism. I was the first to mention that "G" country by name. noctrun was actually the first one to drop the Big N-Bomb.

We definitely need a ruling from the Godz of the Interweb. I'd hate to continue propping up my country's honor if I've already lost on a technicality.

Technically it was you who first brought up their deeds: "steamrolled by Germany again". Btw I was not comparing them to anything, so you can't pull Godwin's law on me.

So would you say American forces sitting in Europe from 1945-1989 *(which dte's taxes definitely went to support) was worth zilch? Just curious.

Don't you mean 1945-today? Anyway, I doubt that prevented any wars, because American companies would have liked to supply weapons to all sides. Like weapon exporting companies (form the USA/Germany/whatever, the usual suspects) always do.

 

[JemyM]

Ooo, I do enjoy questioning intellect. Let's slap those salamis on the table and break out the metre stick, eh? I'll try to take it slow so I don't lose ya. If we accept your initial argument (the one about having to personally "be there" to take credit for a lesson, not the one questioning my chasm-esque dearth of understanding, which was woefully unsupported, if I do say so), then you are not personally responsible for the lessons learned in your vaunted history books either. Therefore, either your dismissal of my qualifications is utterly invalid (I accept your apology) or your evidence of your qualifications is utterly invalid (guess yer just another dumbass like me). Which choice do you prefer, Perfessor?

You make a direct link between an action and a lesson here. They aren't the same thing as far as I concern.

We can learn from history.
We aren't responsible for history.
We can be responsible for not learning from history though.

I do not judge you based on being "American" and what "Americans" did back in 1945. I do not even blame you for what "Americans" did in the Vietnam war. But I can blame you for not learning from German history.

You see, I do not make a difference between people, I make a difference between thought.

 

[dteowner]

I have dedicated my life to it. I am not studying social anthropology at the age of 32 because I have nothing better to do. My education and future goals is about learning how to work with these issues. Points of conflict is my focus point. If I learned anything so far that it's a slow process that take generations and how you get in touch with average Joe is really important for change.

What qualifications are you talking about?

Übereil

It's only 2 pages back, Ubereil. Keep up, man!

 

[JemyM]

While Sweden probably didn't earn any experience in their paladin class for that campaign, the "game" they played might have been the best choice for the nation at the time.

Sweden's actions during WW2 have been one of the most debated questions in Sweden since then.

 

[Rithrandil]

Actually the American invasion of Iraq could serve as one example, just look at the only remaining official reason for the war: Saddam was a bad guy, so it was right for America to invade. Oil is a bad reason, but it would at least have been a reason.

I know that was the Bush administration, and most of the examples I could think of are related to them. And I was delighted that the majority of Amercians voted for change, even though it may not be delivered just as promised.

You specifically said: "The most disturbing thing about the US right now is that they are sometimes not asking is this the right thing to do? but saying this is the right thing to do because we, the good guys, are doing it!"

But you just said one of the reasons to invade was that because Saddam was an evil, evil man. Doesn't that completely contradict your point? We didn't say "We're America so we're killing Saddam." we said "He has WMDs, he's used them against his own people, he's committed genocide, and he's a danger to the US/world/whatever". That's a far cry from what you're claiming, IMO. I mean, even if the reasoning was crap (the WMDs, which other people thought he had/would develop too, mind you), there was still a reason beyond 'Because we are america we're right'.

Don't you mean 1945-today? Anyway, I doubt that prevented any wars, because American companies would have liked to supply weapons to all sides. Like weapon exporting companies (form the USA/Germany/whatever, the usual suspects) always do.

I stopped at 1989 because the soviet union collapsed.

And I think it prevented the Soviets moving in to the rest of Europe.

 

[JemyM]

Just to reject the Godwin's law here, I see nationalism in general to be problematic. As far as I concern, nationalists have a very similar mindset no matter what country they are from. Germany is an often used case study since the nationalist party was elected in a democracy. In Sweden the "Swedish democrats" share plenty of similarities to the young Nazi party. There are nationalists like that wherever there is a nation, so it's not so much the nationalists that are the issue I talk about, but how the public is prepared to face them.

 

[dteowner]

You make a direct link between an action and a lesson here. They aren't the same thing as far as I concern.

We can learn from history.
We aren't responsible for history.
We can be responsible for not learning from history though.

I do not judge you based on being "American" and what "Americans" did back in 1945. I do not even blame you for what "Americans" did in the Vietnam war. But I can blame you for not learning from German history.

You see, I do not make a difference between people, I make a difference between thought.

I won't bother requoting your comment that got this whole conversation started. You can't indict an entire nation and then cower in the cloak of intellectualism. But we'll let that little foible pass for now, as we have bigger fish to fry.

If you disconnect action and lesson, then you've got a real problem. You spend your life rooting around in books but until you apply that knowledge thru action, you've accomplished exactly nothing. So either there is a linkage, or you're wasting your time in the ivory tower.

 

[Ubereil]

It's only 2 pages back, Ubereil. Keep up, man!

...problem with that his qualifications still stand even if he's not responsible for what the Germans did in the 30's. But nevermind, he don't need me defending him, he's a grown up now.

Sweden's actions during WW2 have been one of the most debated questions in Sweden since then.

Probably. I'd say that the Balt Extraction was The Sign that those guys where wusses, though.

Übereil

 

[JemyM]

I won't bother requoting your comment that got this whole conversation started. You can't indict an entire nation and then cower in the cloak of intellectualism. But we'll let that little foible pass for now, as we have bigger fish to fry.

If you disconnect action and lesson, then you've got a real problem. You spend your life rooting around in books but until you apply that knowledge thru action, you've accomplished exactly nothing. So either there is a linkage, or you're wasting your time in the ivory tower.

Judging someone for the actions of their ancestors strike me as incredibly primitive.

 

[dteowner]

Judging someone for the actions of their ancestors strike me as incredibly primitive.

Very nice, and no doubt deeply intellectual, and yet somehow manages to completely avoid answering for the gaping hole in your logic that I pointed out.

 

[noctrun]

But you just said one of the reasons to invade was that because Saddam was an evil, evil man. Doesn't that completely contradict your point? We didn't say "We're America so we're killing Saddam." we said "He has WMDs, he's used them against his own people, he's committed genocide, and he's a danger to the US/world/whatever". That's a far cry from what you're claiming, IMO. I mean, even if the reasoning was crap (the WMDs, which other people thought he had/would develop too, mind you), there was still a reason beyond 'Because we are america we're right'.

The USA dropped the WMD claim long ago, even admitting it was false. America has not kept any reason for the war other than Saddam was a bad guy. Funny that the same Saddam was Americas best friend when he actually had WMD (form the USA, sale negotiated by Donald Rumsfeld), killed Kurds with them (the genocide you mention) and waged war on the Iran.

Thousands of dead innocent iraqi civilians, yeah Saddam was a bad guy. Systematic torture of prisoners of war, well Saddam was a really really bad guy.

America broke international law, but it's okay because America, the good guys, beat up the bad guy. That was the reasoning.

And I think it prevented the Soviets moving in to the rest of Europe.

The same fear cost American taxpayers the Marshall plan and sadly made West Germany keep the 'former nations' secret service guys. Guess what country has a really bad attitude problem toward personal freedoms and learning form ones own history within it's secret services?

Anyway, all of this is way off topic. Even far to off topic for the off topic discussion already going on here.

 

[magerette]

I know I'm late to the party and/or brawl, but I've read the last several pages of this 'us vs them' stuff and the whole discussion seems nationalistic in the extreme from either position.

While it's a fact that the United States of today is not the U.S. of 1945, (probably because the world of 1945 no longer exists) it's debatable if it ever was, even then, a disinterested "good guy," any more than any other country fighting a war. That was the best narrative that FDR could find as he lied through his teeth, concealed things from Congress and through sleight of hand and personal charisma, got Americans to think they needed to help out Britain. And it's far more likely it was to our own national interest to do so, than that we were just 'the good guys' in the equation.

I guess Jemy's point that started this is that America is now a selfish country, where we only care about our own freedoms, amplified by the inference that what we did in 1945 we would no longer do today because we aren't capable of such unselfishness. War isn't about unselfishness, except for the people on the ground who die for a cause.

The 'good guys' narrative is something that's used in every country that's had to go to war. You don't motivate young men to die for their country by telling them you want to make more money. It's pretty hypocritical no matter who uses it.

Does anyone actually think the US would act any differently today if Europe was under attack? Probably not, because the cultural, economic and political alliances in effect in 1945 are as strong or stronger now. (You might not get any Marshall Plan this time, though, since we're broke.) I think the question dte and Rith are touching on is would Europe do the same for us in that situation, and I think the answer is much more in doubt. War is usually as much or more a question of self-interested economics and political maneuvering for power as it is of amorphous concepts like "freedoms." Would Europe's interest lie with ours in that scenario? Because if not, I wonder how 'unselfish' it would be for you to go to war to save the 'freedoms' of the United States, and whether you would then be 'the good guys.'

 

[JemyM]

I do not call the US selfish because of war. Where my criticizm comes in is the rise of neoliberalism that advocate "freedom", yet I could argue have lead to the opposite.

 

[magerette]

So, you're trying to confuse me by going back to the original topic, eh?

I'm not very good at arguing abstracts, so you'll have to explain how we have less freedom now than we had before because of 'neoliberalism' ( I had to look that one up--dictionary says it's ' a liberal who de-emphasizes traditional liberal doctrines in order to seek progress by more pragmatic methods,' whatever that means. I'm taking it to mean change we're not believing in.)

Was your original argument (before we got derailed into the perils of nationalism) that the US is more selfish(i.e.,materialistic and greedy )than it used to be and that personal liberties have suffered because of it? Socially, that's certainly not the case afaict.

 

[Rithrandil]

The USA dropped the WMD claim long ago, even admitting it was false.America has not kept any reason for the war other than Saddam was a bad guy.

I'm not claiming otherwise. My point is these were the reasons given *when the actions were taken*, NOT "We're america therefor anything we do is correct.

Funny that the same Saddam was Americas best friend when he actually had WMD (form the USA, sale negotiated by Donald Rumsfeld), killed Kurds with them (the genocide you mention) and waged war on the Iran.

Thousands of dead innocent iraqi civilians, yeah Saddam was a bad guy. Systematic torture of prisoners of war, well Saddam was a really really bad guy.

I'm aware. I'm an international realist (Machiavellian/Hobbesian) but I think those actions were stupid and not in our best interests.

But you could make the argument that since America was partly responsible (and enabled) those actions, that America had the responsibility to fix the problem it caused.

America broke international law, but it's okay because America, the good guys, beat up the bad guy. That was the reasoning.

I don't really place a high stock in international law for the sake of international law, but this point I agree with to an extent. I don't think we can harp about international law and then bitch about others breaking it. On the other hand, the argument could be made that by our obligations under the UN charter we were required to intervene back in the 80s when he gassed the Kurds for committing genocide. ::shrug::

The same fear cost American taxpayers the Marshall plan and sadly made West Germany keep the 'former nations' secret service guys. Guess what country has a really bad attitude problem toward personal freedoms and learning form ones own history within it's secret services?.

I didn't mind the Marshall Plan. Even if the soviets weren't a threat, I still wouldn't have minded it. I'm for massive international aid. I agree with your point about the former Nazis, though. I have a hard time stomaching the knowledge we protected those with technical expertise. IMO, anyone who didn't know how to build a rocket/etc should have been hung with the rest of them.