This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There is no plausible scenario in which we emerge from the war in a meaningfully better condition.
We ally with the USSR? Today's invasion might get postponed slightly, but the Soviets would still enter the eastern territories and loot under the guise of help. Katyń might not happen in 1940, but these officers would be probably killed after the war, like e.g. Pilecki. The nightmare march westward in 1945 during which Soviets raped basically every encountered woman between the ages of 10 and 80 would still happen. The latter is most certain out of those, as it historically did happen post-Barbarossa, when we were technically allied with USSR. After the Yałta, instead of a satellite state, we could have ended up as a fully fledged Soviet republic, which means the next 45 of oppression are some 50% worse.
We ally with the Reich? They had no scruples breaking Ribbentrop-Mołotow, why would they have any breaking a (highly implausible, ahistorical) Ribbentrop-Beck? (Seriously, the guy who I entrust my life to w/r/t historical knowledge, who is not a normie but a Mishima-and-Evola-reading /ourguy/, completely thrashes the linked book). The Nazis would still shell and bombard us eventually. The Holocaust would still have happened, maybe worse are the government would be collaborating with the German war-death complex instead of resisting it.
But long term, the worst would come after the war. See, nobody cares too much about Vichy Government these days, or the Swiss, or how Sweden supplied Germans with steel. That is because they had decades to wage a successful diplomatic and propaganda campaigns to bleach their history. Hell, pretty much nobody holds a grudge against Germany now. But Poland would be a poor satellite state, unable to have significant democratic relations with the west. What is nowadays a relatively fringe position would be a mainstream one: all the responsibility for the Holocaust would be offloaded from Germany to Poland. We would remain a pariah state for centuries. We might have not get allowed into the EU and NATO, and become a Belarus-style authoritarian backwater. The war that is happening right now across our border might have been happening on our soil instead.
That would be extremely unlikely, Soviets had no plans for so like they had with Finland (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karelian_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic )
Or Poland could same position as Yugoslavia, socialist in a name but without any Soviet armies on it, being a member of non-aligned and trading with everyone.
AFAIK in countries where governments and local population resisted it, Holocaust did not happen, including even German allies until Germans couped them when Germans saw they were losing the war. I.e. SS officials come to Italian officials, and said "we need a list of Jews -- Ok, come back next month" next month: "Please give us the list -- Sorry, we didn't do it, come back next month please".
More options
Context Copy link
Here's another idea: how about offering Czechoslovakia military assistance in the face of a potential German invasion instead of grabbing the opportunity of taking part in its territorial mutilation in 1938?
More options
Context Copy link
This is just made-up. There is no reason to think that Russia might have a significantly greater chance of invading Poland based on a point of divergence some 80 years ago. Nobody can predict what would happen over such a time period. The decision not to pick one of the two choices INCREASED the chance of Russian invasion, it didn't lower it. The Ribbentrop-Beck pact book is nonsense (why would Germany invade Western Europe if allied with Poland?) that doesn't mean all variations of similar ideas are nonsense.
This is also ahistorical, Hungary collaborated. Romania collaborated eagerly. Various Soviet minorities were happy to liquidate Jews. Yet responsibility still lies with Germany. It's not as though Hungary and Romania have enormous influence in world opinion to cover up their misdeeds.
Ally with Germany and hand over Danzig in exchange for parts of Belorussia. Ally with Russia and get gains at Germany's expense (presumably more than received in real life).
Both of those are more realistic options than spurning both powers. There is absolutely no reason to think that the world is fair, that vast suffering is compensated for with rewards of any kind.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link