Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
To the original question: Where does China play a role in this? Or is there too much trade going on between the U.S. and China to label it a cold war?
It's hard to be a super-power w/o another one to compete with... no USSR... so we really need China (or another power of that magnitude) to be a super-power ourselves. Mike Tyson could never be the greatest heavy-weight because he had no one that was near enough to him to make him great by beating them.
....In that same class I took the professor framed the fascist/socialist distinction in easy terms, and I add some of my own comments here. The fascist views society along racial lines, so the intermingling of the races within a community is the area at which tension within the fascist view occurs. As such, it considers society in vertical categories along race, ethnicity, etc.
Agreed.
The socialist/communist views society along economic class lines. Tension does not occur between black and white or whatever, but rather between rich and poor, the haves and the have nots. As such, this ideology considers society within horizontal categories.
Marx mentions nothing about any of these because it is always a struggle between "the haves and the have nots"... as you state, simple economics.
I'm sure there are much more detailed divisions among these views, but this is what basically puts them on either the right or the left. Interestingly enough, I would say that today's conservatives are much less "fascist" in their thinking than liberals are "socialist", since the call now is for a "colorblind society" which doesn't really recognize race (through eliminating affirmative action, etc.). Some might argue that the whole "colorblind society" drive is really an attempt to divide whites from minority groups, but I would seriously disagree with this.
Today's conservatives are more truthfully classical liberals in the sense of the Enlightenment... Adam Smith, Mill, and the like. Personal responsibility is the key here not the gov't nanny-ism of any totalitarian regime... communist, socialist, progressive, or fascist.
If one reads Liberal Fascism [look for a red book with a yellow smiley face, sporting a Hitler mustache ;D] much will become clear about how we've gotten to the current point. While the title seems a an oxymoron it's not; the socialism and social engineering is the key to understanding. Finished it recently and it gives solid testimony on this topic.
S-H was another shatter zone; grew more Germanic all the time (customns and language but was part of Denmark and the Danes were wanting to enforce it. Good nationalist cause for Bismarck.Austria was part of the German Confederation (1815) but not part of the Zollverein (formed in 1834) and was showing signs of wanting to become the most powerful Germanic state... the flap over how to administer S-H was the opportunity for Bismarck to take them down a peg or two, get them out of the Conferation, and get sway over the other Germanic (Confederation) states with an eye toward unification. This was the Seven Weeks' War. This was the tune up for the Franco-Prussian War (six weeks duration); Napoleon III was taken prisoner and France was forced to pay $1 billion and give up Alsace-Lorraine. [See any bad blood brewing?]Enter the Second Reich....
Prussia and Austria took S-H from Denmark; then fought over it. Prussia wins…. [Guess I have to remember to bring the book home from work, eh?]
….World War II was simply a continuation of the first war's inconclusive results. I could go on and on about this, but as was said above, it's terribly complex.
Treaty of Versailles really helped promote round II... MacMillan's Paris 1919 really lays it out well.
Remember this one was about Bismarck testing the Catholics as much as anything else; he was very concerned with unity and doubted their loyalty to German. Too, he wasn't interested in getting Austria into the fold as he considered them a mongrel nation.
Well I would really wonder why the author says they're sadist who ask that question. Does he think the answer simply too complex?
It IS complex! 😮 Where do you start?
I agree with the overall complexity angle; the textbooks list all the basic premises; militarism, nationalism, the alliances (ad nauseum[sp]), and imperialism... we could add inbreeding as all the monarchs were related by blood or marriage (or both) to Queen Victoria... a family feud then?Seriously, there were many conflicting issues that made this war almost a given; the Congress of Vienna could only keep a lid on classical liberalism for so long. starting point then is the big four issues listed above.
After a bit of research I'm convinced that the only reason the war wasn't over (and a victory for the Central Powers) was the valor and savvy of the Canadian contingent. Thank God and General Sir Arthur Currie!
.... Wally, June 28 the assasination. July 28 Austria declared war on Serbia. And within less than a week Germany, France, Great Britain, and Russia all declared war.
... the time frame (assassination to actual fighting) was about a month +/- if I remember right.
;D
There were no de-mobilization plans because everyone assumed once mobilization commenced, there was no turning back the inertia.
Agree... with you both. 🙂
