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 -
It is a Revisionist position, because nobody says "WWII was started because the British wanted to stop Germany from getting too powerful, even though Germany did not want war with Britain." But that's the truth. The official position is that Germany wanted and intentionally started war with Britain and France, proving that in international "court" was one of the primary purposes of the Nuremberg Trial even though it fell flat on that front, the mountains of documents and testimony proved that it was not planned for or expected or desired. Nothing forced the British to wage a war of unconditional surrender on Germany. Citing "long-standing policy" is wrong as the policy position of "appeasement" did not fail, what failed was shifting from 0-100, appeasement to "no negotiations ever, only unconditional surrender after we destroy Europe." That was nonsensical and unpredictable, Germany did not expect it and it was an unpredictable departure from British policy to catastrophic consequences.
The Treaty of Versailles failed because it was an unenforceable attempt to forever keep Germany weak. They had no choice but to negotiate, what people call "appeasement" was the correct solution to the quagmire. The British were going to, what declare war on Germany because they mobilized within their own territory? Ok, so you send in the French and they back down. Then the French leave and they do it again... It was never going to work as a long-term steady state.
No, they entered the war because they had signed a mutual defence pact with Poland.
A mutual defense pact that was motivated in large part by Britian's long-standing policy (since the 1600s) of "containing" any continental power they felt was getting too big/powerful too quickly.
If Hitler didn’t want a war with Britain he could have simply Abided by the terms of Munich, not repudiated the Anglo German Naval Agreement, and most importantly not invaded Poland.
Ok then be honest about who started WWII. Britain did because they apparently had a "long-standing policy" of destroying Europe and handing half of it to the Soviet Union before allowing Germany to become too powerful- and I guess Danzig is the tipping point on that question??? No, a pretext. Britain was already engaging in diplomacy due to the unreasonable terms of the Treaty of Versailles- which caused Germany's conflict with Poland in the first place, and then Britain took an unpredictable turn of "no negotiations, only unconditional surrender" even after Germany offered eminently reasonable terms for peace.
You keep citing "Britain's policy since the 1600s" but you emphasize this argument in defense of the mainstream view that Germany started WWII? Total nonsense. It was British aggression that caused WWII, their insistence that the balance of power in Europe remained according to their own wishes, they could and should have accepted peace especially after Germany conquered France and Dunkirk, and offered to evacuate from essentially everywhere except for Poland in exchange for peace... even offering a guarantee on the British colonies. Churchill refused any negotiation, you can't place primary responsibility on the party that offered reasonable terms for peace rather than the side that rejected all negotiation on a murderous demand for unconditional surrender.
If Germany declared war on Britain instead of the other way around, Churchill offered the deal to Hitler that Hitler offered to Churchill, and instead it was Hitler that demanded nothing short of unconditional surrender from Britain with a policy of no negotiations, you would surely point to that as evidence of German warmongering. But the prevailing narrative is in pure contradiction with reality.
Patton, arguably the greatest WWII General, was relieved of command for stating publicly that America had been fighting the wrong enemy- Germany instead of Russia. It isn't as absurd as we all believe it to be, given the historical and cultural context that has influenced us. It's more ambiguous than mainstream history would have us believe. Stage left- "gas chambers where millions were tricked into their own execution on the pretext of taking a shower." That helps remove the ambiguity, although the problem is that it isn't true either.
Edit: Relevant Hitler edit just dropped on X
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link