 |
| |
|
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:36
|
|
The world's first (and the only memorable) direct democracy has plunged all by itself into a war that lasted 30 years and led the state in question from superpower status to end up under a gruesome dictatorship.
Athens, 5th century B.C., The Peloponesian War
So do not be so confident about democratic or liberal regimes.
I wouldn't even reccomend placing your vote on coomunism either, even though I am a communist myself. The Soviet Union has been in a war situation with China before (1950 IIRC). Vietnam was invaded by China in 1980. Of course these were not strictly communist regimes, but still, as long as there are different state entities, however similar they may be, war is always a possible outcome.
War (strife) is the "father of everything", according to Heracletus. Some here may argue that all technological progress was made for war means, thus war is good for mankind's progress. however, destruction isn't. So our goal should be to have war without destruction. In other words, pure competition. My guess is that only a global revolution could approximate that, by reducing the state entities down to a size and importance that minimizes the attriting effect of strife and maximizes such competition (this, of course, on top of the effect of the cultural change that such an upheaval could bring).
on top of that, one should never forget that, as long as Capitalism is on the helm, it's internal shortcomings, concerning the accomodation of the produced surplus can only be solved by destruction. This means that, as long as destruction remains an essential part of the system, no solution, such as the one mentioned above can be realised. Hence, the need of the overthrow of Capitalism before war can be declared extinct from Europe or anywhere in the world, in that matter.
prey, do not misunderstand my ramblings, for I am quite drunk right now. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
I think the problem with Europe and war is that Europe is simply too urbanized.
Peasants make the best soldiers as they are not squamish at the sight of blood, and have a well-developed physique.
Waging war in an urbanized society where almost two thirds of the land, in central Europe almost all of the land, is built up area, is difficult. A war of maneuvre is next to impossible.
As seen in Palestine and Iraq once the chief urban centres are occupied it is impossible to maintain the peace, and the situation degenerates into guerilla warfare and civil unrest.
New methods of information technology, and the generally more critical populace makes pacifying propaganda against conquered peoples difficult.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
Bear with some nitpicking here.
Isn't Chechnia technically still a part of the Russian homeland?
I don't know if was ever a Soviet Republic. Thus it cannot be called a succesor state.
I might be wrong.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tripledoc
|
|
It depends on whether these economic blocs are autarkic.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Andy-Man
Actually, pre-WW1 germany was very democratic I beleive, and the German Constitution in the 20's is, to my mind, one of the most democratic there has ever been - it elected Hitler of its own accord. Democracy won't stop war at all.
Further more, the UK pre-WW1 did have, or was developing, a mass educational system (compulsory schooling had come in in the 1870's i beleive). And I have heard many say that Germany had the best system of Social Welfare at that time (SDP were v.popular, I think they were in power in 1914 aswell, but not to sure.) |
Pre WWI Germany wasn't a democracy. Bismarck introduced certain social security measures, but that didn't turn a monarchy into a democracy. And the hint to constitution of the 20ies (Weimar Republic) is ok, but then it wasn't the Weimar Republic that started the war, it was Hitler's idea after he abolished everything democratic.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
VetLegion
|
|
Can someone point out to me a case of two parliaments declaring war on each other, or two democracies warring?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000
time: 05:36
|
|
Examiners love questions which invite discussion of the causes of the Great War. Countless millions of words have been written on it and you can find as many learned opinions as you have patience to sit through about it.
What I have never seen much discussed is the personality of the key players and the part that played. Which seems to me silly. If you ask who benefited by what happened the answer is a tiny group of people - mostly in Germany and in the UK - who were sufficiently self important to consider it mattered which country occupied the most land and which exercised the greatest infleunce.
Civ players, but on the grand scale.
Had you lined up all the millions who then fought in the resulting war and asked them if they cared two hoots about such things they would have said they did not.
But, of course, once the small group of "leaders" get far enough down the line towards a war the last thing that happens is for people to examine closely exactly why events are taking place as they are and whether it is a good idea. Instead patriotism gets to be a stronger and stronger force, on each side the "enemy" is demonised and people take up their arms at some point or other along the path as tension rises.
So, in WWII my dad joined up after he saw the City of London set ablaze from one end to the other by a German air raid. That was why he fought. And he became a pilot leading planes which dropped bombs on German cities - no doubt leading some Germans to follow his example.
It is easier to try to cut through the crap about the Great War because the demonising process - from a historical perspective - does not obscure matters. The Kaiser was portrayed, in England, as someone who ate babies. But, in fact, of course he no more actually did so than our own king. What obsures things - a bit - about WWII is that Hitler was an actual monster. But it is worth bearing in mind that all this means is that the demonising process was an easy one to undertake. The fact that this is the only consequence - as opposed to his monstrosity being the direct cause of anyone deciding to oppopse him - is that his mistreatment of shoals of people started before he even secured full political power in Germany. And it then continued for year after year with not a soul suggesting that this was a caussus belli. It was when it was appreciated that he intended to invade Poland that the notion of going to war came up. As with Iraq, reminding people that the opponent is a deep died bastard is just an afterthought - to help reconsile them to war - not the cause.
War has been called the sport of kings. And if you look back to all the wars recorded down the last couple of thousand years it seems to me that what you see is always the same. Some guy who wants to be a bigger king or to govern a bigger country and some other guy who opposes that just for its own sake - because he does not want his own self esteem to drop a bit from giving up some part of those things which prop up his self esteem.
It has always been a pain. Partly for those who do the fighting but rather more so for those who live in the places where the fighting takes place. I recall a fine history book I read about the thirty years war. It had excellent stuff about all the rather romantic characters who flitted in and out of that extraordinary conflict. But it also had some stuff which allowed the reader to see exactly how appalling a life the wretched affair subjected an entire generation to in Europe.
I hope two thusand years turns out to be a short period in the history of the human race. That will only be true if we now kick the habbit of war. And if we manage that, which I believe we will, future generations will look back on the period before we grew up enough to drop that childish habbit and the thing which will then amaze them - as it already amazes me - is why the very large numbers of folk who suffer in war at the behest of so few put up with it.
The guys in the trenches should just have all gone home. Had they strung up the tiny number of imbeciles who put them there well and good.
Or maybe not bother.
But certainly go home.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-06-2004 05:47
|