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 -
I can imagine a dream world where Germany becomes the leader of a continental European entente that includes Poland in the fold. Hitler made peace offers in 1940 that entailed making Poland an independent protectorate, is that really different from their EU and NATO membership today? That map looks like the map of today but minus a Cold War that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war...
Hitler wanted an alliance with Poland against the Soviet Union, and the Poles were inclined to negotiate with the Germans until some bad timing with leadership transitioning and pressure from the British to not negotiate with the Germans.
When Germany was in its strongest negotiating position in 1941, the Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess solo-piloted an airplane to Scotland, strapped on a parachute for the first time, and bailed out in an attempt to go around Churchill and make contact with England's peace factions. Apparently the peace offer was "the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe, in exchange for British neutrality over a planned attack on Russia". It's hard to doubt the sincerity of Rudolf Hess wanting to avoid war with Great Britain given what he did as the leader second in command only to Hitler.
Hess, by the way, was tried as a major war criminal at Nuremberg and convicted. He received a sentence of life in prison, and remained in prison longer than any other German leader until he committed suicide at the age of 93.
I won't speculate who would have won a war between Germany and the Soviet Union in either of those alt-history scenarios. Whoever wins that war, there is no chance in my mind the outcome would have been worse than what actually happened, with Churchill refusing every peace offer made by the Germans and settling for nothing less than unconditional surrender after the complete destruction of Europe and tens of millions of deaths, the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe, and the "denazification" psychological warfare that consolidated the truth regime we all live under today.
I can imagine a dream world where the Soviets become the leader of a continental entente that includes Poland in the fold. Is the Warsaw Pact really any different than EU or NATO membership today? That is, I can if I pretend that the USSR wasn't a horrible state that killed millions and violated the human rights of everyone else. You can continue to play a game of "let's pretend" and claim that anti-German propaganda was merely post-hoc rationalization for the US getting involved in war, but it doesn't fly. The German state actually was that bad. Any "independent" Poland in such a system would only have been independent to the extent that the German transplants would have had some form of self-government after liquidating the native population. This isn't some wild speculation; it's what Hitler said himself, and what Hitler started to implement during the occupation.
Yes, because the Warsaw Pact became the immediate enemy of Western Europe, and West Germany (composed mostly of former Nazi leadership) became the immediate ally of the West. How is this at all coherent? Why couldn't we just skip to that part where Germany is allied with Western Europe against the Soviet Union (which is what Hitler explicitly wanted) without destroying Europe and gifting the USSR half the continent? If Poland had entered the fold as a satellite for Western Europe as Germany had wanted, and as Poland is today, then that is the more logical outcome unless you buy into the post-war propaganda lies that Germany aspired to conquer Western Europe and the world. Hitler also wanted Great Britain as an ally against the Soviet Union, so why was a Total War with unconditional surrender necessary to align West Germany with the West against the USSR?
The US, Great Britain, and France wanted war with Germany and Germany did not want war with them. Instead, we fought an entire World War and destroyed Europe in order to create a pact for a true enemy to the West. It's completely incoherent and unjustifiable without the post-war mythos.
That was the appraisal of General Patton by the way:
Patton wanted to arm the just-defeated Germans and attack the Soviet Union, proposing we "may have been fighting the wrong enemy." How do people's hearts not sink for Europe when they realize what could have been avoided if the West hadn't waged total war with unconditional surrender demands on Germany, rebuffing Germany's peace offers every step of the way? Obviously, their mind is on the post-war mythos rather than the reality of the situation at the time which is much harder to defend without relying on those narratives.
You're leaving out the part where the Nazis still control Germany and Eastern Europe. The situation today isn't what Hitler wanted because Poland and all the rest are actually independent countries run by their own people and not satellites settled with German transplants with the native population relegated to second-class citizens at best and exterminated at worst. They also have at least some semblance of modern democratic, liberal institutions that Hitler never would have tolerated. This is what the West thought was worth fighting a war over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link