Off Topic Politics Thread

[......loading......]

Who is going to be the first to tell Os that Hitler didn't start WWII by invading France? And that France declared war on Germany, not the other way around?

Just in case anyone is in a similar boat:

- Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, in contravention of Versailles. Nothing happened.

- Hitler threatened to invade Austria unless it unified with Germany. The day before Austria was to have a referendum on the matter, the Wehrmacht rolled (unopposed) into Austria.

- Hitler then demanded the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia. And received it in the Munich Agreement.

- Hitler then invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia a few months later because he could.

- Hitler then demanded the Free City of Danzig in Poland (and a land corridor to join it to Germany proper) and Memel in Lithuania. He also demanded that Poland align itself with Germany by joining the Anti-Comintern Pact. Poland refused, Germany invaded, France and Britain declared war two days later.

There are very clear parallels here. Hitler kept making demands, and those demands kept having the desired effect, so he kept making more. By all historical accounts, he was shocked that i) Poland refused to become their client state, and ii) France/UK, previously anxious to appease Germany, actually honoured their treaties with Poland. Though if they honoured them just a bit better, it might have been a far shorter war...France in particular faced a skeleton German force in the Rhineland in the early part of the war, because Hitler simply had assumed that Western Europe would keep caving to his demands.

Similarly, Putin kept up these provocations, invading neighbours and threatening others, and there were few consequences for doing so. He didn't anticipate Ukrainian resistance, nor the zeal with which the West armed Ukraine. But had he succeeded, it's extraordinarily likely he would have continued, just as Hitler wasn't going to stop at Danzig and Memel if the Poles acquiesced, or stopped at Poland if the UK/France failed to honour their treaties.

This is just awesome. If Os doesn’t understand how insane his argument is after reading this he is deep down his rabbit hole!

 

[......loading......]

I love the arguments in this thread! By the logic here we can reinvade India and **** it let’s go take the US back!

Go speak to some Ukrainians or some Georgians about the ways their nations were invaded by Russia under the pretext of reunification.
**** it, let’s let the Scandinavian countries take back chunks of England!

 

[Schad]

This is just awesome. If Os doesn’t understand how insane his argument is after reading this he is deep down his rabbit hole!

I only just realized that he referred to a "tiny portion of France" which had "decades of civil wars and political strife". I think he's talking about Alsace-Lorraine, but I really missed the decades-long Alsatian civil war in history class (largely because it never happened). They're a fun historical footnote as the first place west of Poland to form a soviet, but it only lasted a few days so it doesn't really count as "decades of political strife".

 

[......loading......]

I only just realized that he referred to a "tiny portion of France" which had "decades of civil wars and political strife". I think he's talking about Alsace-Lorraine, but I really missed the decades-long Alsatian civil war in history class (largely because it never happened). They're a fun historical footnote as the first place west of Poland to form a soviet, but it only lasted a few days so it doesn't really count as "decades of political strife".

I honestly can only assume that these people you are talking to have no friends from Georgia or Ukraine. They are totally deluded on what it is like to live in a nation that has suffered so brutally at the hands of Stalin and are desperate not to go back.

Imagine a superpower like Russia (though they have lost a lot of that aura) sitting on your border, fomenting unrest, sending paid actors in, installing puppet governments… and then invading… and some English guy down the pub says ‘You haven’t seen this from the Russian perspective’.

I know at least one Georgian guy who would straight knock you out for saying it. They despise
Russia.

There is no justification for supporting the Russians here if you feel like small countries have any right to exist.

 

[StJabbo1]

The UK gun lobby is against changes to current regulations. I can understand some of their reasoning but was horrified that pump action shotguns were allowed. Immediate ban and calling in of known weapons as a minimum plus proper implementation of current regs.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-ready-to-resist-stricter-shotgun-licensing

 

[EasyBreezer]

You must log in or register to see images

Source: https://www.statista.com/chart/27331/countries-committing-the-most-of-their-gdp-to-ukraine-aid/



The keenest supporters of Ukraine aren't the USA or UK. No, it's the Baltic States, Scandinavian states, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic who are giving up the biggest share of their GDP.

Why? Because they all know what happens next if Ukraine falls.

Vin

That is as a % of GDP...

The US has given substantially more than all Baltic regions combined.

 

[EasyBreezer]

I actually don't think China will invade Taiwan, at least in the medium term. Could be wrong about that, but the cost/benefit there really sucks for them...they'd win, sure, but a massive-scale amphibious landing against a small country that is going to be heavily geared toward anti-air and anti-sea weaponry is pretty scary stuff. You lose a couple aircraft carriers to little ol' Taiwan, or your troops that have never actually fought a war in living memory do poorly and get thrown back into the sea on the first attempt, and your veneer of invincibility and peer status falls.

They're probably better off treading lightly over the next few years and focusing on what is likely to be a pretty fractious internal situation, because they no longer have double-digit growth to keep the populace from chafing too much against their repression. We got a quick glimpse of that a couple months ago. And that makes the economic consequences of war even more significant, both because of the loss of markets, and because they would no longer have the foreign currency to use in their soft power projects in Africa and South America.

Using external conflict to take the focus away from internal problems is certainly an age-old trick, but Xi isn't the same kind of autocrat, at least to my eye, and China hasn't staked so much of its national identity on empire-building. The post-Xi power struggle might result in a weak leader taking over and feeling the need to do something big to rally the population (much as Putin almost definitely bombed his own civilians as a justification to invade Chechnya), but XI himself has an awful lot to lose and very little to gain by so doing.

Completely get everything you say and it does seem completely bonkers to attempt it. But the CCP has stated it's desire to reclaim Taiwan from the ROC. Tensions in the South China sea are certainly escalating. China has a huge pool of poor rural people to draw on, much like Russia. These despots do not value life the way we do in any way.

 

[BackFromBeyond]

And in those days, when Hitler blamed Britain for forcing him into war, people saw through the lie and laughed through gritted teeth.

Nowadays when Putin says he was forced by NATO into invading Ukraine, people retweet the lie and post it on forums.

Vin

You must log in or register to see images

 

[EasyBreezer]

You keep acting as if the warmongers in the US and UK are dragging the rest of Europe into this but, with the exception of Germany (which, to be fair, has very good reason not to be in the vanguard here) it's the historically peace-loving countries most vocally calling for increased military aid.

Can't speak for Archers, but I don't think it is warmongers dragging Europe in to this per se, but the usual suspects making use of any situation for the usual profiteering that seems to accompany death, destruction and turmoil.

Western corporations have made trillions helping blow things up and subsequently rebuild them.

We all agree here that Putin is an evil prick who needs stopping. But if the option on the table is ~millions dead, tens of millions relocated with huge swathes of land left completely destroyed and cities left for ruin then I just can't see how taking the moral high ground allows for any victory.

It's a **** situation, no doubt, but the debate needs to be far more nuanced than public discourse is presently. I am sick of people just saying Putin is bad and we need to stop him. That's just so mindnunbingly obvious it hardly needs pointing out.

With regards to the WW2 analogy/ comparisons, just absolutely classic internet behaviour, Godwin's law 101.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

The UK gun lobby is against changes to current regulations. I can understand some of their reasoning but was horrified that pump action shotguns were allowed. Immediate ban and calling in of known weapons as a minimum plus proper implementation of current regs.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...by-ready-to-resist-stricter-shotgun-licensing

3 shot max on a shotgun ticket, so yes there are shotguns owners with Semi Autos and pump actions, but they have a restricted capacity so only one more shot available than a normal double barrelled. I'm thinking of getting a semi auto myself as that extra shot is handy.
Any more than 3 shot capacity, and you need a full firearms certificate to own one so there's many fewer around than people imagine.

 

[Osvaldorama]

And in those days, when Hitler blamed Britain for forcing him into war, people saw through the lie and laughed through gritted teeth.

Nowadays when Putin says he was forced by NATO into invading Ukraine, people retweet the lie and post it on forums.

Vin

You are quite simply air brushing history.

There was huge anti-war sentiment in the 30’s. Hitler had to invade multiple countries and be warned many times before we got involved.

And even when we got involved against the majority wishes.

There are also huge, huge geopolitical differences now. We are protected by NATO and our nuclear weapons systems. We have absolutely nothing to gain by baiting Putin, and everything to lose.

 

[Onionman]

With regards to the WW2 analogy/ comparisons, just absolutely classic internet behaviour, Godwin's law 101.

Comparing quite carefully the behaviour of two autocratic leaders who invaded a series of countries and weren't stopped early is 'just absolutely classic internet behaviour'?

I'm not certain that Godwin's Law was created with the intention of making any discussion of Hitler open to ridicule.

 

[Schad]

We all agree here that Putin is an evil prick who needs stopping. But if the option on the table is ~millions dead, tens of millions relocated with huge swathes of land left completely destroyed and cities left for ruin then I just can't see how taking the moral high ground allows for any victory.

It's a **** situation, no doubt, but the debate needs to be far more nuanced than public discourse is presently. I am sick of people just saying Putin is bad and we need to stop him. That's just so mindnunbingly obvious it hardly needs pointing out.

So he needs stopping. Just, without military intervention, I guess?

With regards to the WW2 analogy/ comparisons, just absolutely classic internet behaviour, Godwin's law 101.

Let's see what Mike Godwin -- the originator of Godwin's Law -- thinks, shall we?

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Onionman]

So he needs stopping. Just, without military intervention, I guess?



Let's see what Mike Godwin -- the originator of Godwin's Law -- thinks, shall we?

You must log in or register to see media

Sublime!

Vin

 

[EasyBreezer]

So he needs stopping. Just, without military intervention, I guess?



Let's see what Mike Godwin -- the originator of Godwin's Law -- thinks, shall we?

You must log in or register to see media

Definitely not suggesting some form of military involvement isnt needed. Just pointing out that using as the "only" option, i.e., beating Russia in a war, to end this is going to kill a lot of people.

I saw that earlier, pretty funny he has gone for it really.

Anyways I'm off on holiday, have a good week ya'll.

 

[Osvaldorama]

On a slightly different note.. people called me crazy etc. for saying that certain narratives across different media platforms get pushed by big money.

Well, now there is proof:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...atars-team-jorge-disinformation-fake-profiles

Bot farms which are used to form opinion. The power of this is nuts.

I listened to a podcast this week, saying the recent developments in AI are scary, as it means we won’t be able to establish what is true or not anymore.

I would argue that we arrived at that point a few years ago.

Democracy is unable to function without access to the truth.

 

[Onionman]

Here's an interesting analysis from a moderately bright Russian...

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Schad]

Definitely not suggesting some form of military involvement isnt needed. Just pointing out that using as the "only" option, i.e., beating Russia in a war, to end this is going to kill a lot of people.

I saw that earlier, pretty funny he has gone for it really.

Anyways I'm off on holiday, have a good week ya'll.

If it seems surprising (and that tweet is nearly a year old), I'd suggest that you didn't really understand the concept in the first place. Godwin has been pretty clear for a long time that it's totally fine to see parallels between current fascists and historical fascists, just that you probably shouldn't invoke Hitler in a discussion about small engine repair or whatever.

 

[EasyBreezer]

If it seems surprising (and that tweet is nearly a year old), I'd suggest that you didn't really understand the concept in the first place. Godwin has been pretty clear for a long time that it's totally fine to see parallels between current fascists and historical fascists, just that you probably shouldn't invoke Hitler in a discussion about small engine repair or whatever.

I understand it perfectly well thanks. Not sure why the need to suggest a lack of comprehension? I felt this conversation was being held in good faith given the similarities of our respective positions.

If entirely sensible positions are disagreed with them that is entirely reasonable, and me and many others will love to engage. But to be met with a sneering condescension that feels completely unwarranted isn't.

I respect your views and you're clearly well read and knowledgeable but if you want to this to become an echo chamber by sneering at anyone offering an alternative view then fair enough but these types of conversations are far more interesting at understanding how other people think?

If I've misinterpreted this then my apologies but that last comment just felt a bit unfair.

 

[Osvaldorama]

I understand it perfectly well thanks. Not sure why the need to suggest a lack of comprehension? I felt this conversation was being held in good faith given the similarities of our respective positions.

If entirely sensible positions are disagreed with them that is entirely reasonable, and me and many others will love to engage. But to be met with a sneering condescension that feels completely unwarranted isn't.

I respect your views and you're clearly well read and knowledgeable but if you want to this to become an echo chamber by sneering at anyone offering an alternative view then fair enough but these types of conversations are far more interesting at understanding how other people think?

If I've misinterpreted this then my apologies but that last comment just felt a bit unfair.

You’ll learn that it’s what a few on this forum do quite a lot, if you have the audacity to have differing opinions to them & the guardian.