orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (11/27/85)
Earlier I posted an article about the Soviet Union's
dominance of the countries in Eastern Europe after
World War II. I pointed out that the circumstances
of that occupation hardly proved popular theses of
either a monolithic Communist Conspiracy or the Soviet
Union's attempt to gain "worldwide domination" by taking
over every other country in the world. Kenneth Arromdee
has claimed that scarcely anyone believes in a "worldwide
communist conspiracy" anymore. If this is so I wonder why
Jerry Falwell decries "the communist conspiracy" behind the
struggle against Apartheid in South Africa? I have seen similar
statements expressed both on this network and in letters in
the newspaper and also articles in the media.
If Kenneth is willing to admit there is no such thing as
either a "monolithic communist conspiracy" nor a Soviet desire
for worldwide domination I am glad. It means reality may finally
be sinking into the American public.
But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US
and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations
always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it.
For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow
"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War.
Another part of this myth is that countries with similar ideologies
will not go to War with each other, whereas countries with
different ideologies and social systems must be locked in
mortal combat.
This myth is comforting because it resonates well with
past excuses for War such as Woodrow Wilson's slogan that
we were entering World War I to "make the world safe for
democracy". Wars are always justified in terms of high ideals
even though they involve senseless mass murder usually for
greedy aims. Even when a War's aims *are* noble, the use of
War's mass murder to achieve those aims is often both senseless
and a contradiction to the very aims War seeks to serve.
Thus, for example, the frequent justification for wholesale
bombing and napalming of villages during the Vietnamese War
was "we had to destroy that village in order to save it."(??!!!)
This contradiction reaches the height of absurdity when we
find Reagan and others claiming that we have to continue
producing and deploying evermore nuclear weapons aimed at the
Soviet Union in order to "protect Soviet human rights."(???!!!)
Aiming yet another missile at a Soviet dissident so they will
be more surely annihilated protects *their* human rights?
This absurdity smacks of the double-think so masterfully portrayed
by George Orwell's 1984.
My next article deals with the roots of War in the nation-state:
irrespective of ideology.
tim sevener whuxn!orbins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/02/85)
In article <849@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >[Soviet post-WWII actions] hardly proved popular theses of >either a monolithic Communist Conspiracy or the Soviet >Union's attempt to gain "worldwide domination" by taking >over every other country in the world. Kenneth Arromdee >has claimed that scarcely anyone believes in a "worldwide >communist conspiracy" anymore. If this is so I wonder why >Jerry Falwell decries "the communist conspiracy" behind the >struggle against Apartheid in South Africa? ... >If Kenneth is willing to admit there is no such thing as >either a "monolithic communist conspiracy" nor a Soviet desire >for worldwide domination I am glad. It means reality may finally >be sinking into the American public. I do NOT agree with Jerry Falwell and I do not believe there is a monolithic Communist conspiracy. I do believe that the Soviet Union wants worldwide domination, but I do not believe that everybody who expresses liberal views is supporting this desire, either intentionally or unintentionally, and I do not believe that every Communist government's creation was due to this Soviet desire for worldwide domination. To clarify, I believe that the the leadership of the USSR knows that it isn't possible to just take over the world, but that it views a situation closer to this as a desirable outcome, and takes advantage of opportunities that enable it to come closer. >But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US >and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations >always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it. >For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow >"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War. When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? >Another part of this myth is that countries with similar ideologies >will not go to War with each other, whereas countries with >different ideologies and social systems must be locked in >mortal combat. I do not believe this part of the myth, only the narrower version that democratic countries don't go to war with democratic countries and that non-democratic countries are likely to become enemies of democratic ones. (Note the word "likely".) >This myth is comforting because it resonates well with >past excuses for War such as Woodrow Wilson's slogan that >we were entering World War I to "make the world safe for >democracy". Wars are always justified in terms of high ideals >even though they involve senseless mass murder usually for >greedy aims. Even when a War's aims *are* noble, the use of >War's mass murder to achieve those aims is often both senseless >and a contradiction to the very aims War seeks to serve. What other way could Hitler be stopped? In what way was the entrance of the US into WWII a "greedy aim"? I think that the concentration camps alone were sufficient reason to fight that particular war, even though they were not the main reason for the US entrance. >Thus, for example, the frequent justification for wholesale >bombing and napalming of villages during the Vietnamese War >was "we had to destroy that village in order to save it."(??!!!) I do not support these past actions of the US, and nowhere did I say I had. >This contradiction reaches the height of absurdity when we >find Reagan and others claiming that we have to continue >producing and deploying evermore nuclear weapons aimed at the >Soviet Union in order to "protect Soviet human rights."(???!!!) Please give a reference for this; I strongly suspect that the context for this is somewhat different than what you make it out to be. >Aiming yet another missile at a Soviet dissident so they will >be more surely annihilated protects *their* human rights? >This absurdity smacks of the double-think so masterfully portrayed >by George Orwell's 1984. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Read 1984 again. A lot of it (though by no means all) was aimed against the USSR. Better yet, read Animal Farm. It's even clearer that it was aimed against the USSR. -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/06/85)
Apparently Kenneth Arromdee needs to study his history more closely as he asks of my comment: > >From me >from Kenneth Arromdee > >But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US > >and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations > >always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it. > >For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow > >"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War. > > When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? > Kenneth Arromdee 1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack another independent democratic nation then this is going to be made more rare in the 20th century since by that time the majority of the world was under the domination of European colonialism fostered every bit as much by parliamentary democracies such as Britain and France as by autocratic regimes like Germany and Imperial Russia. (Indeed, it has been argued that one of the causes of WW I was the German desire to get its own colonies to match those Britain and France already possessed) In having such colonies to begin with it should be quite obvious that Britain and France had to engage in numerous military interventions and invasions in the colonialized world. Once these colonies were established then I would argue that their efforts to achieve independence from foreign domination and colonial status were definitely efforts to achieve local autonomy and greater democracy as opposed to British,French and other powers efforts to retain exclusive control of these countries. Therefore countless struggles for independence from Britain and France can be considered wars in the direction of greater democracy *opposed* by democracies like Britain and France. 2)In 1907 Austria passed a law providing for universal manhood suffrage and subsequently elected a Parliament composed primarily of Liberals, Christian Socialists, and Social Democrats. Need I point out that Austria-Hungary despite the movement towards democracy represented by this development was a major instigator (if anyone can be blamed, which is difficult in WW I since *all* were really at fault) of WW I by attempting to suppress Serbia's revolt and its manifestation in the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. It was hardly the case that WW I necessarily represented a "war for Democracy", but rather it represented attempts by all nations involved, whether democratic or autocratic, to increase their own power. Thus democratic France had no qualms about forming an alliance with autocratic Csarist Russia. France and Britain, both democracies and rivals for centuries, could have easily ended up on different sides in WW I and it might have been considered likely they would. The reason they ended up on the same side had nothing to do with sympathy with each other's democracy but rather each nation's calculation of what in the complicated and shifting scheme of alliances before WW I, would be in their own best interest. This is an example of established democratic nations attacking or warring with other democratic nations. There are many examples of either invasion, occupation, or military intervention against movements towards democracy in the 20th century by democratic nations. More on these later...... tim sevener whuxn!orb
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/10/85)
In article <424@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Apparently Kenneth Arromdee needs to study his history more closely >as he asks of my comment: > > >From me >from Kenneth Arromdee >> >But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US >> >and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations >> >always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it. >> >For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow >> >"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War. >> When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? >> Kenneth Arromdee > >1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack > another independent democratic nation then this is going to be made > more rare in the 20th century since by that time the majority of > the world was under the domination of European colonialism fostered > every bit as much by parliamentary democracies such as Britain and > France as by autocratic regimes like Germany and Imperial Russia. ... > In having such colonies to begin with it should be quite obvious > that Britain and France had to engage in numerous military interventions > and invasions in the colonialized world. ... Therefore countless > struggles for independence from Britain and France can be considered > wars in the direction of greater democracy *opposed* by democracies > like Britain and France. Question: what is your definition of war? If you count a decoloni- zation struggle as a war, that definition would logically lead you to positions that as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not support. Specifically, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the struggles against it, and Afghanistan, etc... must count as wars the blame for whom is on the Soviets. >2)In 1907 Austria passed a law providing for universal manhood > suffrage and subsequently elected a Parliament composed primarily of > Liberals, Christian Socialists, and Social Democrats. > Need I point out that Austria-Hungary despite the movement towards > democracy represented by this development was a major instigator ... > ... Thus democratic France had no qualms about forming > an alliance with autocratic Csarist Russia. France and Britain, both > democracies and rivals for centuries, could have easily ended up > on different sides. ... The reason they ended up on the same side had nothing > to do with sympathy with each other's democracy but rather each > nation's calculation of what ... would be in their own best interest. First, saying that France and Britain "could have" ended up on different sides doesn't count. Here's some more about Austria-Hungary (Hungary this time) from the 1910 Encyclopedia Britannica, in a footnote in the "Hungary" article... The franchise is "probably the most illiberal in Europe." Servants, in the widest sense of the word, apprenticed workmen, and agricultural laborers are systematically excluded. The result is that the working classes are totally unrepresented in the parliament, only 6% of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the franchise, which is only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population.... > tim sevener whuxn!orb I also note that though you have remarked in detail upon WWI, you didn't remark at all here upon WWII. Is this because it's excruciatingly obvious that one side was right and the other was wrong? WWI has been referred to as a war by mistake, but WWII was a war by appeasement. -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (12/11/85)
In article <424@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >> >But there is another myth which is quite popular in the US >> >and other democracies, indeed it is a variant of rationalizations >> >always used by nations preparing for War or actively engaged in it. >> >For the US and Western democracies it is the myth that somehow >> >"democracy" necessarily makes a country less likely to go to War. >> >> When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? >> Kenneth Arromdee > >1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack > another independent democratic nation Absolutely. Revolts and revolutions are another matter entirely. See below. >2)In 1907 Austria passed a law providing for universal manhood > suffrage and subsequently elected a Parliament composed primarily of > Liberals, Christian Socialists, and Social Democrats. > Need I point out that Austria-Hungary despite the movement towards > democracy represented by this development was a major instigator > (if anyone can be blamed, which is difficult in WW I since *all* > were really at fault) of WW I by attempting to suppress Serbia's > revolt and its manifestation in the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. Congratulations! You found one example ... sort of. Austria may have had a democratically elected parliament, but it was hardly a democracy. It still had an emporer, who was hardly resigned to being a figurehead. >This is an example of established democratic nations attacking or >warring with other democratic nations. There are many examples of >either invasion, occupation, or military intervention against movements >towards democracy in the 20th century by democratic nations. These are ambiguous at best. Historically, the success rate of nominally democratic revolutionaries actually establishing a democracy is abysmal -- even where there was no foreign intervention. The U.S. is the notable exception -- and no revolution before or since has been fought by established republican bodies as that one was. So it is quite reasonable to regard revolutionaries as anti-democratic, even when they proclaim otherwise. I suppose you will bring up Chile, as well. I think that, without U.S. intervention, the Chilean political process would have dumped Allende at the next election. But his regime does not qualify as a "movement towards democracy"; it was a movement away from democracy. Even without our intervention, he might have succeeded in wrecking it. Certainly things got worse afterwards, but they might have anyhow. I think the intervention was a mistake, but it is not unambiguous. I will await your continued presentation before making further remarks. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/12/85)
> [ ... ] WWI has been referred to >as a war by mistake, but WWII was a war by appeasement. Well, I disagree. I claim WWII was also a war by mistake. Hitler didn't think that France and England would go to war over Poland. That was one of his many mistakes. His basic war aim was to gain territory in the East, destroy communism, enslave the Eastern races, and that kind of thing. He wanted to cooperate with the British Empire in order to dominate the world jointly. He didn't want to fight the western powers, particularly Britain.
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (12/16/85)
Continuing the discussion of democracy, imperialism and wars. Kenneth Arromdee writes: > > tim sevener > kenneth arromdee > When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? > Kenneth Arromdee > > > >1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack > > another independent democratic nation then this is going to be made > > more rare in the 20th century since by that time the majority of > > the world was under the domination of European colonialism fostered > > every bit as much by parliamentary democracies such as Britain and > > France as by autocratic regimes like Germany and Imperial Russia. ... > > In having such colonies to begin with it should be quite obvious > > that Britain and France had to engage in numerous military interventions > > and invasions in the colonialized world. ... Therefore countless > > struggles for independence from Britain and France can be considered > > wars in the direction of greater democracy *opposed* by democracies > > like Britain and France. > > Question: what is your definition of war? If you count a decoloni- > zation struggle as a war, that definition would logically lead you to > positions that as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not > support. Specifically, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the > struggles against it, and Afghanistan, etc... must count as wars the blame > for whom is on the Soviets. > I never said that the Soviets were not to blame. I make no apologies or excuses for the awful Soviet record and I have stated *MANY* times my opposition to their domination of Eastern Europe and their invasion of Afghanistan. What does that have to do with the major thesis: that *democracies* have engaged in such wars many times? That the British Empire was built upon countless invasions and subjugations of other nations? That France attempted to regain their Indochinese colony after WW II and the US provided help in that endeavor? I never said that non-democratic countries were necessarily peaceful or never engaged in War as a means of national policy. I have questioned the myth that *democratic* countries never fight against each other or never engage in agressive wars of domination over other countries. tim sevener whuxn!orb
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/18/85)
In article <442@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Continuing the discussion of democracy, imperialism and wars. >>> tim sevener >> kenneth arromdee >> When, in the 20th century, did a democracy invade another democracy? >> Kenneth Arromdee >> >1)If you mean when did an already independent democratic nation attack >> > another independent democratic nation then this is going to be made >> > more rare in the 20th century since by that time the majority of >> > the world was under the domination of European colonialism ... >> > In having such colonies to begin with it should be quite obvious >> > that Britain and France had to engage in numerous military interventions >> > and invasions in the colonialized world. ... Therefore countless >> > struggles for independence from Britain and France can be considered >> > wars in the direction of greater democracy *opposed* by democracies... >> Question: what is your definition of war? If you count a decoloni- >> zation struggle as a war, that definition would logically lead you to >> positions that as far as I can tell (correct me if I'm wrong) you do not >> support. Specifically, the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and the >> struggles against it, and Afghanistan, etc... must count as wars the blame >> for whom is on the Soviets. >I never said that the Soviets were not to blame. I make no apologies or >excuses for the awful Soviet record and I have stated *MANY* times my >opposition to their domination of Eastern Europe and their invasion of >Afghanistan. When >What does that have to do with the major thesis: >that *democracies* have engaged in such wars many times? That the British >Empire was built upon countless invasions and subjugations of other >nations? That France attempted to regain their Indochinese colony after >WW II and the US provided help in that endeavor? 1) You did note I set a limit of the 20th century. Many things were done centuries ago that aren't generally acceptable today; for instance most countries, at least officially, don't accept slavery. We don't see many religious crusades either. 2) As far as I can remember the war in Vietnam was mostly in support of South Vietnam and not France--France pulled out relatively early. It had very little to do with colonialism past that point. Furthermore, if the US were not a democracy, we might even still be there. In a democracy, you can elect out someone whose keeping you in a war, and the person you elect knows that if they don't exit the war they'll be elected out too. 3) I notice you left out your Austria-Hungary-was-a-democracy argument; do you concede that you were wrong and at least Hungary was _not_ a democracy? >I never said that non-democratic countries were necessarily peaceful >or never engaged in War as a means of national policy. I have questioned >the myth that *democratic* countries never fight against each other or >never engage in agressive wars of domination over other countries. > tim sevener whuxn!orb You haven't shown any even purported examples of democratic countries "fight(ing) against each other". Can you do so (again limiting it to the 20th century?) -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa