Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[rms]

How is either documentary war propaganda? They are really critical of Allied powers and Russia's is fascinating from the things they talk about. Not sure you could find any historical documentaries that are as sweeping in its analysis.

If Britain and France aren't legitimate war powers, then no one was besides Germany. That's a stupid position to take. The Allied powers as a whole outnumbered Germany on land and definitely at sea. Germany had an early advantage on land in organization and tactics, which was quickly eroded, on top of Germany's finite manpower reserves vs the ever increasing Allied manpower.

It's not stupid, it's basically correct. No one else was preparing for or ready for war following WW1 outside of the Nazis. This is the kind of things historians tend to argue, not this silly contingent perspective that Buchanan offers.

Of course if you count 3 (4 w/ Russia) they are going to outnumber 1, but France's military basically had no value. GBR took another year or two to get ready and America took the longest to mobilize. Nazi Germany took advantage of the interventionist policies of the West in late 1930s and it's crazy to think Hitler would have just stopped at Poland.

 

[Dak]

It's war propaganda in the sense that they are just discussing the horrors of fighting (which is, of course, all Germany's fault ). Russia was the least innocent and most opportunist of all the powers involved.

Uh, France put their chips in the Maginot line, it's not Germany's fault it was a massive strategic error, and France still had 90 infantry divisions. Britain was always a naval power and still remained uncontested by the Germans outside of Uboat attacks on the seas.

I didn't say Hitler would stop with Poland, but he wasn't trying to take over the world, or even all of Europe.

 

[rms]

I didn't say Hitler would stop with Poland, but he wasn't trying to take over the world, or even all of Europe.

What is your argument behind this statement?

Uh, France put their chips in the Maginot line, it's not Germany's fault it was a massive strategic error, and France still had 90 infantry divisions. Britain was always a naval power and still remained uncontested by the Germans outside of Uboat attacks on the seas.

So how do you explain the rapid fall of the French army if they still had "90 divisions" ? Their military was not ready for combat, even if the defense of the blitzkrieg wasn't such a mistake.

I've already said the British navy is the only reason why they were not conquered as well, but their military was still a joke in the European theater in 1940.

It's war propaganda in the sense that they are just discussing the horrors of fighting (which is, of course, all Germany's fault ). Russia was the least innocent and most opportunist of all the powers involved.

I don't know how you say that 36 episodes only cover the horrors of war, but if that's how you want to define them, then whatever. Lots of good information in there, but whatever.

 

[Dak]

What is your argument behind this statement?

Well apparently we can't take Hitler at his word, so....

So how do you explain the rapid fall of the French army if they still had "90 divisions" ? Their military was not ready for combat, even if the defense of the blitzkrieg wasn't such a mistake.

I've already said the British navy is the only reason why they were not conquered as well, but their military was still a joke in the European theater in 1940.

Uh, tactics, organization, the fact that the French have sucked at war for a long time. Agincourt redux. According to Quigley, the head of the French military in WWI believed "esprit de corps" could beat machine gun bullets. Absolutely retarded leadership.

Britain + France still equaled Germany (to say nothing of Russia) in divisional manpower, so you can't not call them "military powers".

I don't know how you say that 36 episodes only cover the horrors of war, but if that's how you want to define them, then whatever. Lots of good information in there, but whatever.

Some information on troop movement and whatnot. Once everyone declared war on everyone, all bets are off on what intent was.

 

[Einherjar86]

I didn't say Hitler would stop with Poland, but he wasn't trying to take over the world, or even all of Europe.

He wanted to position Germany to take over the world. This was his ultimate vision/fantasy. Even if the process would exceed his lifetime, the opening moves are as important as the endgame.

 

[Dak]

Well, theoretically all major powers want/ed to control the world. That doesn't mean they were all about to invade the planet tomorrow.

Britain basically controlled the world from the fall of Napoleon until the end of WWII, and could be argued from the fall of the Armada until the end of WWII.

 

[Einherjar86]

Maybe not "tomorrow," but Hitler pursued versions of extra-European expansion even during his lifetime. The point is that Hitler invited preemptive measures from the West. His actions and words weren't subtle. I'm not saying the war was moral, but I'm also not saying anything was irrational. Buchanan makes too little of Germany before WWII. Not only did Hitler make it clear he had plans for expansion beyond Europe, even if he lacked the immediate resources (he did talk with Japan about taking the war to North America); his regime was founded on an ideal of conquest, and he saw much worth destroying in America (which he saw a Judeo-negrified cesspool, to paraphrase).

The USSR and Germany may have significantly weakened each other; but if the West saw advantages to joining with the Soviet Union in order to see to it that Hitler's Germany couldn't succeed, then it makes sense they would do so.

I'm not arguing for the moral destruction of evil Germany. I'm saying that all things considered, Hitler provided enough justification for the West making preemptive moves.

 

[Dak]

Maybe not "tomorrow," but Hitler pursued versions of extra-European expansion even during his lifetime. The point is that Hitler invited preemptive measures from the West. His actions and words weren't subtle.

Well I'm not sitting here saying he was a pacifist or anything. He was pretty clear about wanting to take back the territory lost in WWI, specifically where German speaking peoples resided. But there weren't really any "extra-Euro" moves. The Wehrmacht was dragged into Africa by Italy's incompetent forces. Where else?

I'm not saying the war was moral, but I'm also not saying anything was irrational.

Well, from a Anglo-French perspective Germany appeared a much more present danger than Russia did, so in that case it definitely wasn't irrational. Hind-sight suggests this was a mistaken analysis, but it is hindsight. My original point going back to the other thread was much more about the error of the US getting involved in WWI at all, much less on the Allied side. Pure Anglophilia. Neither war was "moral", particularly when one of the Allies in WWII was a bloodier regime.

he did talk with Japan about taking the war to North America);

I'd be interested in reading anything on this that predated say, 1941-42, and in addition a conversation that wasn't one sided by Japan. Japan had determined the US naval power in the Pacific had to be smashed before they could do anything in the East. This has nothing to do with Hitler's ambitions. Once war starts getting declared though and nations start jumping in and picking sides, all conservative intent flies out the window and you start having to play it as it comes/lies.

 

[Einherjar86]

He approached Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor suggesting a joint offensive against the U.S.A. Even considering that such a declaration would be unlikely, Hitler was looking at options; and much of Germany's actions can be read entirely as provocation. Hitler may not have wanted war per se, but he certainly wanted to be able to go to war militarily.

Not all countries seek imperialism via military force. The Nazi ideology espouses a culture of military dominance and force, and that's what they sought to do to the best of their ability.

 

[Dak]

He approached Japan prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor suggesting a joint offensive against the U.S.A. Even considering that such a declaration would be unlikely, Hitler was looking at options; and much of Germany's actions can be read entirely as provocation. Hitler may not have wanted war per se, but he certainly wanted to be able to go to war militarily.

I didn't look hard but I couldn't find this. Also, we have plans on file in the US for invading pretty much every country in the world btw, so take that with a grain of salt. Standard military procedure. NATO probably has war plans for taking on Russia and China.

Not all countries seek imperialism via military force. The Nazi ideology espouses a culture of military dominance and force, and that's what they sought to do to the best of their ability.

You don't have imperialism without militarism....

On militarism though, Trump gave the first interview today where he sounded more intelligent than the rest of the candidates running now or in the last 2 decades. Still a lot of the standard eyerollable braggadicio, but he said (partial paraphrase) "I'm more militaristic than anyone, and the war in the Middle East was stupid, Vietnam was stupid.....Putin is going to get mired in there (the ME) now, I don't care if he's hitting ISIS....GWB was a disaster.....the TPP is a disaster. Almost sounding like Ron Paul until he starts saying money manipulation in our favor is good lol

 

[tagradh]

Standard military procedure. NATO probably has war plans for taking on Russia and China.

You mean definitely, because despite innumerable fuckups they're not total morons.

(although, that said, the people that go on and on and on about how we're definitely going to be going to war with Russia are fucking mongs)

 

[Dak]

Yeah, I meant simultaneously, but definitely to that also.

 

[Einherjar86]

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6254

Now Muslim women are being physically attacked on the street (not that there’s anything especially new about this, I suspect, beyond the sudden attendant publicity) and Justin Trudeau ineffectually bleats “This is not Canada!” But he’s wrong: this is exactly Canada. Harper’s ploy wouldn’t stand a chance if this wasn’t Canada. And Trudeau should know: he was right there helping Harper build the damn thing when he cravenly supported a panopticon bill redefining “terrorist” as anyone who expresses support for someone the government doesn’t like. And because this is Canada, the only major political party with the ‘nads to vote against C-51 is now trailing badly in the polls.

Don’t talk to me about percentages. Don’t tell me that I’m being too harsh, that two thirds of Canada’s population wouldn’t spit on Harper if he was on fire, that he owes his power entirely to gerrymandered riding boundaries and vote-splitting on the left. That shouldn’t matter. Harper’s contempt for empirical fact, his evangelical devotion to ideology over evidence— his ongoing campaign to actively destroy evidence when it doesn’t accord with said ideology— is so blatant that gerrymandering every riding in the whole damn country shouldn’t be enough to save him in any nation whose mean IQ rises above room temperature. It’s like trying to claim that the USA is not populated by scientific illiterates; you’re not gonna make that case by pointing out that hey, when you give them a multiple-choice question about how long it takes the Earth to circle the sun, only half of them get it wrong.

 

[rms]

Whatcha gettin' at Ein? Canada is lame?

 

[Einherjar86]

More like things aren't much better here. I'm also fascinated by the "scientific illiteracy" thing.

 

[rms]

I thought you were diggin' at the people who want to move to Canada if X Y and Z occur.

The author's analogy interests you or?

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought you were diggin' at the people who want to move to Canada if X Y and Z occur.

That needs to be criticized too.

The author's analogy interests you or?

I mean, yes; but I'm more generally fascinated by the way that scientific illiteracy informs larger political illiteracy. This doesn't mean that everyone needs to know the mathematics behind general relativity, but I think that comprehension of the basic premises of observation and perspective can have valuable consequences for our ability to discuss ethical and social issues.

Obviously, discussing literary thematics or ethical hypotheticals isn't the same as discussing the arithmetic behind Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relation - but coming to terms with the Uncertainty Relation in an abstract sense can help us better understand things like relativity in social circumstances. I see arg make appeals to common sense all the time, and this is a nearly ubiquitous move. I encounter people wedded religiously to their convictions, without the capacity for self-criticism or skepticism. These things lead to the kinds of asinine ignorance Watts is talking about: for instance, people not knowing something simple like how long it takes for the earth to circle the sun.

 

[Dak]

The system both creates/thrives on this ignorance while also paradoxically suffering under it. But what can ya do?

 

[Dak]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4v-hgF9k-o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4v-hgF9k-o[/ame]

 

[Einherjar86]

Bitch stole my line.

Actually, he stole Roland Barthes's line (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythologies_(book)).

EDIT: never mind, he got the reference in there.