The Way We Are Now and Where We Are Going
"Nothing doth more hurt a state than that cunning men pass for wise." —Francis Bacon
I finally figured out why so many people admire Obama and his family. They remind TV watchers of the Heathcliffe Huxtables.
I have been practicing "Kumbaya" lately. I want to be ready for Real Change.
Of course, Obama owes a lot to his campaign manager, the brilliant Karl Rove.
The current crop of World War II revisionists seem to be saying that British arrogance and blundering caused the disaster of World War II. All Hitler really wanted was to prevent vicious sneak attacks by Denmark and Luxembourg and save Poland from Communism. Luckily, Switzerland was afraid to attack him.
It seems Mr. Paulson is now in charge of the U.S.A. I don't seem to remember voting in that election. Do you?
Interesting that in a "democracy" the rich can get a tax deduction on the interest paid on a second vacation home but the poor can't even get a deduction for a car necessary to get to work.
According to Obama, his election proves that "the dream of OUR Founders is still alive in our time." (Emphasis added)
From little ACORNs, mighty oaks often grow. (Emphasis added)
American: Any person who claims to believe in "democracy" and is eager to make a buck; especially any foreigner who claims to believe in "democracy" and wants to make a buck.
One possible lesson from the current financial debacle: You can't have a First World economy with a Third World population.
History's verdict on the Bush administration: arrogant incompetence; failed state.
There is agitation that Obama is not a native-born American citizen and his taking office will be in violation of the Constitution. Don't be silly. What makes you think the Supreme Court and Congress care about the Constitution?
My once noble native State, which not long ago elected Sam Ervin and Jesse Helms, has gone for Obama. This is mostly the result of mass immigration. Not from south of the Rio del Norte—from north of the Potomac.
"And now the U.S., like Britain before it, has begun the long slow descent into the Third World. How sad. Where now is our last best hope on earth?" —Peter Hitchens
Entries(RSS)
I wasn't trying to impress anyone, Mr Porreca, and I could not care less whether you are impressed or not. Regardless, the Gestapo can be a valid source of information at times, as can the KGB, etc.
Of course Mr Chan is justified in doubting the information for the reasons he states.
Mr Meng, I will read that article. I have wondered for some time about Gregory Douglas, since some of the things in his books are kind of hard to believe at times. As for the rest, I made it appear that I was more sure than I really was about Stauffenberg. I should have put in a disclaimer. Even so, I'm not sure if I trust the IHR either.
Mr Wolff, the demonisation of Germany, as I'm sure you are aware, is a cornerstone of the propaganda of the European and American ruling elites. If we are going to save the Western world, then it must end and it's terrible effects must be negated.
Mr Meng, I have't read anything by the IHR in years, but I am quite impressed by their website. There is a of lot of stuff there.
Now the issue for me is to learn more about Douglas' background, and see if these allegations are true. Of course that's a tall order and I really dont have time to do so. It must go on the back burner.
This Gestapo Chief business is the same problem I had with the Barnes Review. They published things that looked to be true, other things that I couldn't be sure about, and some of it seemed over the top, but it was usually plausible enough that it could possibly be true. The information on Stauffenberg seemed believable at the time, but that was ten years ago and I was not aware of this information on Douglas, or whoever he is.If memory serves, some of the things Weber said dont tally with what Douglas said in his series. If I could find those books I could verify a couple of Weber's assertions.
Thank you, Mr Meng, for busting this bubble. I still wish I had put that disclaimer in, as I have done before, more than once.
For that matter, what do people here think of Leon Degrelle? I have't read anything by him. I'm just wondering, is it worth the time and trouble?
Mr. Wilson @105: You are a gracious man. Apropos Leon Degrelle, he was a staunch Belgian Catholic and anti-Communist and headed the Rexist Party. In my personal library, I have his "Hitler Born at Versailles" and his "Campaign in Russia: The Waffen SS On the Eastern Front". I think you would enjoy them. He paints a quite frank picture of the events surrounding the rise of Hitler in the first; the second reveals a man of courage and idealism in the midst of relentless combat. By the way, I assume you already know the distinction between the Waffen SS and the Himmler groups like the Einsatzgruppen. The Waffen SS were elite combat troops, not executioners. Hollywood and the American press, and I suppose also in academia, this distinction is blurred.
H.F. Wolff,
The Germans are the smartest Europeans I have seen--far more impressive than that nation of traders called Great Britain, which has been around for much longer though--in terms of philosophical depth and understanding there is no comparison.
They generally have a good understanding of Greatness everywhere--not confined to Europe. But it seems that something happened after the War--I recently met a German and he was ashamed to be German and that he spoke with a German accent. Perhaps this is a result of the demonization of the culture you are speaking of.
Mr Meng, I an well aware of the difference. What you said about Degrelle is what I suspected would be the case, but it's nice to have it verified. The main reason I haven't read 'Born at Versailles' is the high cost of a copy of it, when you can find one.
Gargi and Mr Wolff, it is exactly that, demonisation of the culture, just like what has been done to Southerners, with the same effect. In both cases, it must stop. We are not talking here about veterans who might understandably have old hatreds or prejudices against their erstwhile enemies. It's something far bigger than that. People who demonise entire cultures and peoples cannot but have evil motives, fueled by hatred.
106 Mr or Ms gargi:
The modern German character is definitely impaired due to the severe and incessant denazification that began after the war. The fundamental premise was German = bad, American = good. Can it be brought back to an equilibrium? Perhaps with great effort, but one must begin by accepting the truth and then shout it off the proverbial roof tops. Under the current free speech laws in Western Europe this will just get you into prison, even in the USA.
The business of the holocaust is big business indeed, and the profiteers thereof will bring any weapon required to eliminate anything that endangers that cash flow.
I have argued on German and British blogs, but the debate very quickly deteriorates into a name-calling contest although some intelligent contributions are often made by people from Russia.
As I stated in an earlier post I am sick and tired of being lied to by officialdom of all stripes, and having war crimes committed on my dime. For the sake of the entire western world this must stop.
I do my little contribution to bring about this change by taking to task any public statement that I know to be wrong. Once I e-mailed a Canadian television station and pointed out the arithmetical error with regards to the supposed 6 million holocaust gassings. I noticed that they no longer give any figures when they propagate that lie. Of course I get called names such as Nazi apologist in this thread, to which my standard reply is "Name calling is the final refuge of the out-argued scoundrel".
107 Mr Allen Wilson:
I have suspected for a very long time that the tales of the holocaust are used as a shield to deflect any kind of criticism of Jewish nefarious activities, and as an excuse by western governments to curtail our freedoms in order "to protect the cause du jour", 9/11, et al. All governments, without checks, balances, or public criticism become monsters that will devour us and all that is good and noble.
And to protect that is worth a fight.
H.F. Wolff
@J Meng
I think since WW1 the plan was to dissolve the ruling monarchies of Europe and using Germany as a sacrificial lamb to create the Cold war.
International bankers financed and installed Communism in Russia and drafted the post war reparations on Germany in the first place and western companies made huge profit in dealing with the USSR.
The USSR would not pose a critical threat to the west as its economy was totally dependent on high interest foreign loans as its economy was run through a central bank which they controlled and due to failed Marxist farm collectivisation they had to constantly import grain into the USSR.
On the other side in there western power base the bankers were able to extend there reach to the four corners of the world interfering in Latin American, Asia and Africa overthrowing governments, supporting insurgents against governments they don’t like and supporting governments they do to counter soviet influence
It is no surprise that during the 80’s the Soviet economy and the US economy was in trouble as they were created by the same people.
H.F. Wolff,
Gargi is a female name.
I am certainly greatly indebted to the Germans for a large portion of my education, and for many things I have learned and value, even regarding my own culture. The most serious scholarship even on the East has been done by German scholars, and in terms of philosophical depth and insight, I doubt anyone surpassed them in modern times, before the War. I do not know much about the second World War, but I had an American friend who went to study in Germany recently and he was disappointed regarding the culture-I guess having read too many authors from there, he was naive in that he had expected something different regarding the state of culture...But standards are in decay everywhere around the world, not just in the West.
@george
I do not like Communism, but when I look at the Russian Republics, the Russians did a lot to develop these areas--they modernized them and created infrastructure. Is that not worth something? Very different from the backyard of the U.S.A. I wonder if Russia would not have been better of it it had transitioned slowly like China...
H.L. Wolff @ 86
"But what did the Prussians do with all this military ability? Start wars? Not by any criterion you wish to choose."
After reading this quote, I thought I might be on the verge of senility or something, so I just decided to "look it up," as Yogi Berra liked to say. Here's what a very casual perusal found:
1701 - Prussia becomes an independent kingdom as a reward for helping the German Emperor against France in the War of the Spanish Succession.
1701 to 1721 - Prussia helps to defeat the Swedes in the Great Northern War
1740 to 1760 - the Silesian Wars are started by Frederick the Great as a way to get hold of that Austrian province. These include the War of the Austrian Succession, and the Seven Years' War.
1772 - Frederick the Great initiates the partition of Poland.
(Skip the Napoleonic Wars...it's enough to note that Prussia was a major player in that prototype of the European World Wars)
Then there were the wars over Schleswig-Holstein with Denmark, the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870.
I submit that this is more than enough evidence to show that the Prussian state was a highly agggressive and combative entity. The Prussian Junkers were indissolubly linked with the Prussian military. As Voltaire said, "Most states have an army. In Prussia, the army has a state."
I'm not saying that this was necessarily evil or deplorable. And yes, some of the above-mentioned wars were perhaps forced upon Prussia. But it is just silly to try and paint Prussia as a "peace-loving" state.
Gargi, @113; I assume when you use the word "Russians" who developed Russia, you mean the word "Communists". If you do, then I must ask is any kind of development, infrastructure or otherwise, worth millions of dead people who did not want to cooperate with Communist plans?
As usual, the tangent has been stretched out to absurdity. All of this on only one of my quips out of 14. Did anyone read the others?
As a historian, it seems to me that a lot of our writebackers are full of theoretical assumptions that need to be tested by real research in the sources. I refer you to Dr. Fleming's very wise comment on his Dante post: "The way to begin to understand ....."
#83. The Germans I am referring to are not innocent draftees. They are the large group of radical refugees from the failed 1848 revolutions who imported their nationalism and militarism into the U.S. They were in 1860 from 7 to 15 per cent of the population in every Midwest state and New York, were highly activist, and were the main force in tipping
the Northern majority from Democrat to Republican. Engels complimented them on their great contribution to the mobilization of the Union army. They were particularly vicious among Union forces in atrocities against the native Americans of the South, sons of founders and Revolutionary soldiers.
George, @111: Of course, WWI terminated directly or indirectly the last three great monarchies of Europe, i.e., Russia, Germany, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I believe Grand Orient Masons have been working since the 18th century to bring down kings and were first successful during the French Revolution. In place of monarchy they have imposed on us a bowl of pottage: democratism.
There is no doubt that the Versailles Peace Conference imposed a harsh treaty on the Germans in terms of reparations that were extortionate (Lloyd George had promised Englishmen "to squeeze the German lemon until the pips squeaked."), the war guilt clause, the loss of colonies and German lands on the Continent, and the reduction of the German armed forces. No doubt, Germany was to be kept underfoot. However, the one thing the bankers and politicians at Versailles did not foresee, was a charismatic war veteran, virulently anti-Communist, and devoted to restoring the German nation: a leader like Hitler.
This preoccupation with events in Europe well over a half century ago seems to me a diversion from proper consideration of American history and the current needs of America. The struggle in Europe in the mid-20th century between the two great (and very similar) tyrannies of Germany and Russia and the atrocities that bothy committed has limited application to our present dilemma.
@Meng
Did not the Russians develop many of their Muslim Republics, communist or not? This is what I am saying. I know what communism entails-- I know they killed many of their people just as Mao killed many of his people. I am not defending this as a moral good. But look at China today. I am not saying all is rosy and great there, but compare this to the China of warlords. When you compare a criminal like Mao and a gentleman like Nehru, you will be surprised that the misguided idealism of the latter harmed his country way more than former.
Look at Tibet. The Chinese have developed it and built schools and hospitals there. I am not defending communism but Tibet was in a miserable condition and Chinese have done a lot for it. Old Tibet was a serfdom ruled by 5% monks. It is both better off and worse off under the Chinese, so it is difficult to come to a facile judgment of such matters in my opinion. Each country must act in its interests and undergo a pattern of development which is appropriate for it and this might not necessarily be what you view as "moral".
Clyde Wilson @ 114
"As usual, the tangent has been stretched out to absurdity..."
That's the way it is in all conversations, Dr. Wilson. One thing leads to another.
#115
Dr. Wilson. I will address three more of your 14 observations quoted here:
"One possible lesson from the current financial debacle: You can’t have a First World economy with a Third World population."
"It seems Mr. Paulson is now in charge of the U.S.A. I don’t seem to remember voting in that election. Do you?"
"History’s verdict on the Bush administration: arrogant incompetence; failed state."
At the risk of sounding alarmist, realities reflected by these three statements could have ominous implications for our future. It's recently been reported that components of the Third Infantry Division are now stationed state side and will be involved in crowd and riot control during periods of "civil unrest".
Expanding on those three points:
1) A failed state straining under depression and/or hyperinflation carrying a burdensome debt owed to some international creditors, some of whom have an axe to grind with the US.
2) A third world population with the potential to make civil unrest and violent crime that much worse, with Mexicans, Haitians, inner city blacks and other groups targeting not only each other, but whites also (on the assumption that whites have more money).
3) Un-elected oligarchs to make our economic decisions for us with our tax dollars (for what those dollars may be worth); a President acting outside the Constitution and a compliant Congress allowing him/her to do whatever is deemed "necessary" to maintain "national security".
This isn't your father's 1930's economic crisis being contemplated, but potentially something far worse. Demographically and other ways, the US has changed much in the last 75 years. Consider how bad Haiti is as a failed third world state. Think of the 1968 in America's inner cities and early '90s Rodney King riots in LA. It doesn't take much imagination to conclude that if the economy and employment situation really get out of hand, people will take to the streets. Why? The more civilized to protest. The less civilized to riot, loot, rape and murder. Our rulers might just order the troops to shoot first and ask questions later. (Or not ask any questions and just get rid of the bodies.) Does anyone think there are no gung-ho US soldiers to be found who would shoot their "fellow" citizens? Especially if those citizens are of a different race? Maybe it would result in whites, blacks, hispanics, and Asians self-separating into their own geopolitical entities.
Of course I hope none of these bad things occur.
Correction: Think of the 1968 RIOTS in America’s inner cities ...
On second thought, breaking into separate racial geopolitical entities could be a good thing.
Joseph Salemi, @121; Dr. Wilson, @119: Right, Joe, the natural dynamics of informal conversation do ramble from topic to topic within a generally specified category and beyond. Here, the category seems to be history. However, have the topics discussed been stretched to absurdity within this category, here? If so, please, define what is absurd.
Dr. Wilson, would you please tell us humble contributors to this site why events of half a century ago do not impinge upon the present? Would you please describe why the totalitarian states of Nazi Germany and Communist Soviet Union have nothing to do with the present dilemma for America? Would you please define or describe the present dilemma and tell us where its roots lie?
117 Dr Clyde Wilson:
I respectfully submit that the occurrences in Europe during the first half of the 20th century, and the USA's unwarranted interference therein, have a most direct bearing on the predicaments the USA finds itself in today; consequently those occurrences are a logical part of these discussions.
As an aside sir, I respectfully invite you to debate me in this forum: The contribution of German immigrants to the development of the USA socially, intellectually, and industrially, up to the time of the USA entering WWI.
112 Mr Joseph Salemi:
I have answered this question before on this blog; I will put together a more compact reply, here, later today.
110 Ms gargi:
Thank you for clarifying that little mystery.
The last time I was in Germany was in 1984 on business and visiting cousins. It was a wonderful time yet I noticed a certain apologistic air on the part of my aunts on any issues involving Jews. I did nor pursue this issue very much because that visit pre-dated my interest and knowledge of the holocaust.
Today I would tell them point-blank that I do not believe one word of that swindle and that neither should they.
Any historic occurrence the debate and questioning of which is verboten by law, is logically a lie.
H.F. Wolff
Meng @ 122
I sympathize with Dr. Wilson's annoyance on this point, and I suspect it is due to a very common classroom experience. When you let undergraduates talk too much, they drift off into areas that are not part of the planned lesson. That is why it's best to lecture, with what I call "opportunity for questions" (translation: I'll do the talking, except for when you ask me to clarify something specific).
@Doctor Wilson
As to the current financial debacle, yes they gave out loans to people who are not financially responsible, but what about the greed of those bankers giving out the loans? My boss' wife only three months ago was telling me that the economy is not in a bad shape, and has not affected them much. These people seem to live in a different reality.
It is not right to make profits out of Mexicans as I have seen here and then cast the blame on them, after squeezing out the profits, for disrupting this society. Why not blame laws which enable people to make profits out of them in the first place?
I remember a while back my physics professor was complaining that most of his students are foreign (don't ask me why I suffered through two years of college physics). So why are Americans not studying these things? Because they are being deprived by immigrants? Why blame those that do study?
Why are the public schools in America the best equipped in the world but turning out such poor results? Is this because of the children of immigrants as well who are teaching American children not to study? Why is it difficult to find people who are not from divorced or dysfunctional households? Immigrants? Why is Hollywood more like a pornographic industry? Immigrants? Why does one have to shut off cable because there is nothing to watch on TV. Immigrants? I remember many of the adjuncts hired for my Math classes could barely speak English and were incomprehensible. So why are they hired? Because they are willing to work for lower wages I was told. So why not give higher wages so people who speak English will teach instead of blaming these people who are willing to take the job at lower wages? It is really easy to point fingers without having your own house in order.
How about this one:
'There is agitation that Obama is not a native-born American citizen and his taking office will be in violation of the Constitution. Don’t be silly. What makes you think the Supreme Court and Congress care about the Constitution?'
The people themselves dont care about the constitution. Blacks would recoil and become hateful at any argument that B.O. is not a citizen, while never seeing the obvious: they really dont know, and it could be true (wilful ignorance and irresponsible will to power). Whites are too stupid to give consideration to the idea that maybe the issue should be investigated. After all, they dont want to appear to be 'prejudiced' now do they? Besides, we're just getting ourselves all worked up over simple technicalities, right? (moral weakness, depravity, self hatred, cowardice). Americans really are a pathetic lot nowadays.
Every night, I spend eight hours among people who are so ignorant that it's depressing at times. Eight hours of knee-jerk reactions, mindlessness, big mouths, stupid, idiotic opinions based on ignorance, arrogant Yankee prejudices, 'Southerners' who talk more like Yankees than anything else and wont even defend their own homeland anymore, even run their own people down like a Yankee. This is an alien world, which leads to Dr Wilson's other point:
'According to Obama, his election proves that “the dream of OUR Founders is still alive in our time.”
The founders dont belong to most Americans anymore, since even the descendants of Americans of the founding period are now aliens to their own heritage and traditions, and therefore, not really Americans anymore. And that is the reason for this:
American: Any person who claims to believe in “democracy” and is eager to make a buck; especially any foreigner who claims to believe in “democracy” and wants to make a buck.
That's the Libertarian view, but the cultural Marxist view would define as an 'American' anyone who is foreign, and/or of any colour other than white, who either wishes for, or can be used as unsuspecting cannon fodder for, the destruction of white America.
‘American’ anyone who is foreign, and/or of any colour other than white, who either wishes for, or can be used as unsuspecting cannon fodder for, the destruction of white America.
Sorry with all due respect, I really laugh this. Right Mr. Allen, there are several people like me plotting for the destruction of "White America". It of course has not happened because of elites who like my bosses think that since 1% pay 50% of taxes, they own this country. It has not happened because of the breakdown of families, breakdown of educational institutions, because of the corporate greed, because of the many faulty laws they enact...
Anyway, it was nice being on this site. I do not see much else to learn here. Good bye everyone. It was nice being here. There are some intelligent people here, but the arguments get repetitive and mighty tedious...One can only sit and complain like old ladies for a while, it means nothing unless it is translated into action and I am not an old lady to continue to sit and complain.
Dear Mr Editor,
My post #128 is in direct response to Mr Salemi's query in post #112.
Why will you not post it?
If there is anything objectionable, not that I am aware of any such thing, please edit and post.
Thank you.
H.F. Wolff
Joseph Salemi, @126: I totally agree with you, since I have had some classroom teaching experience. In those circumstances, the topic discussed, if not guided, tends to unravel into various unrelated subjects. Nevertheless, this isn't a classroom. The structure of this site appears to me, at least, to be somewhat informal based on the particular theme of the writer. I understand the uselessness of flying off into unrelated topics, but where have some of us gone awry or even absurd within the domain of this particular article?
H. F. Wolff, @130: Its possible you have inserted an internet link within your posting. If so, there is a chance it will come under moderation. That's why I was unable to post to you earlier on the topic of Dachau. If you have, expunge the link and rephrase your post.
112 Mr Joseph Salemi:
Below are the references I promised regarding the militarism of Germany/Prussia; these references are copied/pasted from a book I found...Title thereof just escapes me.
Quincy Wright, A Study of War (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1942)
Professor Quincy Wright offers this further statistical evidence for the same period, that is, 1480-1940:
Of the 278 wars involving European states during this period, the percentage of participation by the principal states was: England, 28; France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland, 11; Sweden, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (Prussia), 8; Italy (Savoy-Sardinia), 9; and Denmark, 7.7
In the circumstances, one is compelled to assent to Dr. Wright's conclusion that "attribution of a persistently warlike character to certain states ... seems not to have been based upon a comparison of any objective criteria of warlikeness."8
New York: American Book Company, 1937, III, pp. 350-352.
The distinguished sociologist and historian, Pitirim A. Sorokin, in his monumental study, Social and Cultural Dynamics,9 assembled data proving that historically, of all the nations of Europe, Germany had the lowest percentage of years with war. Spain, Poland, Lithuania, Greece, England, France, Russia, Holland, Austria, and Italy all exceeded Germany in this respect. Sorokin's conclusions are very much like those of Quincy Wright above. He writes that "the magnitude of 'militarism' or 'war effort' or 'war burden' shifts from country to country in the course of time. Furthermore ... there are no consistently peaceful and consistently militant countries."10
Unconditional Hatred (New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1954), p. 55
The eminent British military and naval historian, Captain Russell Grenfell, computed the record of numerical involvement in wars by the major European powers in the crucial century between Waterloo and Sarajevo as follows"11
Military involvement
Country Wars
Britain 10
Russia 7
France 5
Austria 3
Prussia-Germany 3
At time of WWI this book was written:
The Great Illusion by Norman Angel
Billings & Sons, Guildford
All of chapter 4 is interesting, pg 233 in particular. A review of this book is available on line. Findings as above.
Enjoy.
H.F. Wolff
131 Mr J Meng:
Thank you for that pointer; indeed the web reference stopped the posting. Too bad really because it was a listing of all the foreign wars the USA has been in since independence.
H.F. Wolff
It is very sad that an intelligent and articulate man should take as a mission the defense of the Third Reich. Among all else, it shows a lack of primary allegiance to his own country, assuming he is a U.S. citizen. It is good to study history and learn what we can from it. It is bad for an American to show loyalty to a foreign country, whether it is Russia, Germany, China, Israel, Mexico, Ireland, Serbia or any other.
Wolff @ 131
This is why someone once said "There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics."
The table of wars that you quote from the Wright book is compromised by the fact that it is completely uncontextual. The nations that are mentioned as having the most wars in that time period (England, France, Spain, Russia, Austria, and Turkey)were all active empires! Naturally they were going to be involved in plenty of military struggles. And quite naturally, smaller nations without far-flung empires like Poland, Sweden, and Prussia were NOT going to have as many wars. But that has no bearing whatsoever on the issue of whether a country is militaristic in its basic ethos.
By your mathematical logic, if one man has ten children, and another man has only two children, it follows that the first man is more "fatherly." That's completely absurd, and shows a strangely quantitative mind.
Why did Frederick the Great rape Silesia, in a totally unnecessary and drawn-out conflict? Why did the Prussians steal Schleswig-Holstein? Why did they bait the French in 1870 into a pointless and embittering war? Why were the Prussians a joke even in Germany, with their ramrod-stiff authoritarianism and blind obedience? The next time you visit Germany, why don't you ask a Bavarian what he thinks of the Prussians?
I am as opposed to the demonization of Teutonic culture and its people as anyone else here, Mr. Wolff. But you don't make it easy for us by denying the obvious. Prussia was a highly militaristic and aggressive state, right down to its DNA.
Joseph Salemi, @136: "By your mathematical logic, if one man has ten children, and another man has only two children, it follows that the first man is more “fatherly.” That’s completely absurd, and shows a strangely quantitative mind.
It seems you are mixing apples and oranges. Having ten children (a quantitative statistic) does not equal fatherliness (a quality). What ten children might suggest is that someone was more involved in sexual intercourse than another; or less involved with birth control, etc.
No, the issue isn't the substance of my example. The issue is the logical fallacy of trying to judge something quantitatively that ought to be judged qualitatively. THAT'S the reason I gave the silly example in answer to Wolff. You are quite right -- a qualitative thing cannot be measured quantitatively.
Wolff was arguing (at least by implication) that you could determine how warlike a nation is by the simple counting of how many wars it had fought. My counter-argument is that just because a nation has fought many wars, it doesn't necessarily show that said nation is intrinsically belligerent. And it also follows that just because a nation like Prussia didn't fight as many wars as, say, France or England, doesn't prove that Prussia is a "peace-loving" nation.
In the ancient world, Sparta was proverbial for its warlike and militaristic spirit. Yet as a matter of fact, the Spartans always showed a strong disinclination to actually go to war. If we used the yardstick of Wolff and Prof. Wright, we would have to say that Sparta was a "peace-loving" city-state.
OK?
Yeah, ok, Joe.
134 Dr Clyde Wilson:
"...It is bad...to show loyalty to a foreign country..."
Agreed, and applicable to citizens of any country.
It is also good to endeavor to correct falsehoods, especially if these are used as shields for more lies and war crimes to the detriment of my country.
Would you not agree that this is a loyal and Christian thing to pursue?
If my attempts to correct these lies attract ad hominem attacks and derision, so be it. So far in my endeavors very few individuals have been able to refute one of my assertions with verifiable facts that would withstand scientific, forensic, or other unbiased, scrutiny.
135 Mr Joseph Salemi:
...“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, damned lies, and statistics.”...
Cute, and I have used that expression myself AT AN APPROPRIATE MOMENT, ie. at a time when I was armed with more credible NUMERICAL data.
If you wish to dismiss three research works and one book with arm waving and off-the-cuff remarks... so be it.
But,if we are having a serious discussion here, it will require one of the following to question my submittal:
1) show that at least 2 authors are biased
2) show that at least 2 author's statistical methodologies are erroneous
3) show that at least 2 authors made an error in their calculations
4) provide works of 4 authors with more credible credentials and show that these authors meet all the criterion the lack of which would cause rejection of my submitted authors.
Unless you can do that you are just venting.
H.F. Wolff
Mr Salemi, though I essentially agree with you @ 134 concerning Prussia (I dont wish to get involved in the other issue since it involves complicated histories which must be used to put each war into context), I believe that the militarism of Prussia has been exaggerated at times. After all, Prussia, which in the 19th century was in some ways a young upstart in expansionism, was surrounded by powerful neighbours and had no real defensible borders. It's a small wonder that militarism would set in.
Even so, the statism inherent in the civilian life of 19th century Prussia seems rather too obvious to contradict, and it would naturally go along with the militarism.
I think what we may be dealing with here is a natural consequence of the geopolitical situation of Prussia; just as a highly centralised state seems to be historically natural to Russia because of it's own geopolitical situation and history of being invaded repeatedly.
Correction: it would be more accurate to say that Prussia was an upstart during the 18th century, but I think it was still viewed as an upstart by other European powers during most of the 19th century.
Wolff @ 138
It seems that you still don't grasp the basic point I am making. The issue is not numerical. The issue is qualitative. You can't just tot up the number of wars that a nation has had and determine by that number alone how "warlike" or "militaristic" it is. It doesn't matter how many authors and researched texts you bring forward. If the authors in question don't grasp this elemental point (as you seem not to be able to do), then their tables and charts and graphs don't mean anything.
Are you trying to confirm the old stereotype about Germans and their slavish adherence to authorities? You are well-read enough to know that an author's arguments aren't validated just by being set in print.
Did you see my reply at post 136 to Meng? Read what I said about Sparta.
No one is "venting" here, Wolff. We are simply trying to state what is a pretty obvious fact -- namely, that Prussia was a highly militaristic state. And we are not saying that this was necessarily a bad thing; as Allen Wilson points out, Prussia "was surrounded by powerful neighbors and had nor real defensible borders." In order to survive, she had to be militaristic, and we are not blaming the state for that. YOU are the one who is being irrationally defensive and mulish in your refusal to admit the obvious.
You know, guys, maybe our crusty old Confederate Clyde Wilson is on to something about the German character and mentality.
I will say this in compliment to the Prussians. In the Franco-Prussian War a few years after the War between the States, the Prussians were much less vicious toward the civilian population of France than were the Yankees in Dixie. In fact, Prussian generals were shocked when Sheridan bragged to them about his exploits.
Joseph Salemi, @141: After some thought, maybe not enough, and I will stand in for correction by you or others, but what nation has not been militaristic according to your defintion to Mr. Wolff apropos Prussia. Therefore, what is the point of your argument against Mr. Wolff. Also, wouldn't you say the degree of militarism within a country is reflected in the number of times it is involved in war, whether brought about by itself or by ties to allies, or by sheer self-defense?
As a Catholic, I despise the "Iron Chancellor", Otto von Bismarck. But, in terms of what the world was following as appropriate national policy at the time of his influence was he any different from England, France, Austria, or Russia?
Another thing, we are living at a time of effective propaganda, that maybe, we are transferring our WWI and WWII hatred of Germany back to the 18th century. Besides, when you consider the regime of Kaiser Wilhelm with the despicable activities of the English ruling class in the nineteenth century up to the Boer War, Germany must be seen as a shy virgin.
I want your thoughts on this, because the truth is essential, not propaganda.
J. Meng @ 143
To tell you the truth, friend, I really don't know why Wolff has insisted on turning this into an argument. Anyone who has read my postings here at Chronicles knows that I hate the pro-forma anti-Germanism of contemporary ideology. I don't even think we should have gotten involved in either World War.
Yes, every nation is militaristic when it has to be. If it isn't, it simply goes under with the weak. That's why the great Machiavelli was so anxious to build up a native Florentine militia when he had political influence in his city. What did he write? "States are not maintained with words."
The problem may be that Wolff sees red whenever we use the word "militaristic," since for many Europeans it is always a pejorative. So when I say that Prussia was a militaristic state, he immediately thinks that I am throwing an insult at her. I'm not.
You say that as a Catholic you despise Bismarck. OK, fine -- he directed a Kulturkampf against us for a while. But you shouldn't let parochial considerations like that cloud your overall political judgment. If that idiot Kaiser Wilhelm had kept Bismarck as Chancellor instead of firing him in 1890, we might have avoided World War I. The loss of Bismarck's cool intelligence is what lit the damned fuse for twentieth-century tragedy on a grand scale.
Concerning Catholics and Prussia, recall the attitude of that great Catholic apologist Hilaire Belloc. He LOATHED Prussia, and considered her the epitome of everything that had gone wrong in the West since the Reformation. She was Protestant, rambunctious, expansionist, bureaucratic, rigid, and she produced that monstrosity Hegel, the source of that German Idealism that Belloc thought was at the root of so much modern insanity.
No, I don't think a country can be called "militaristic" just because it has been involved in many wars. Some of the wars may have been forced upon the country. Others may have been legitimate disputes.
You are a "militaristic" nation when all your psychic energy and material resources are given over to the idealization of warriors and the war-like spirit. This was the case with Sparta, and I think it certainly was the case with Prussia, certainly after Frederick the Great put his impression on the state.
You bring up Perfidious Albion. Sure, she was involved in all sorts of wars and nefarious doing and expansionism. But in point of fact soldiers and the military were despised in English society. Read Kipling on this issue. He was profoundly militaristic, and he hated it that his countrymen had so little respect for soldiers. The same thing comes up in the writing of H.H. Munro (better known by his pen name, Saki). Munro was an extreme imperialist and militarist, but he spends gallons of ink attacking the English for their unmanly and un-military wimpishness. So for this reason, I think you can't say that England was "militaristic" in the way that Prussia always was.
Sorry if I have been rude or snippish. You know us Sicilians. We whip out our knives the way the Swiss whip out their crossbows.