tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post6828009937156894335..comments2024-03-16T01:00:19.876-05:00Comments on The Mad Monarchist: After the World Came ApartMadMonarchisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-29591170429686761602015-01-09T10:30:47.429-06:002015-01-09T10:30:47.429-06:00You think there were distinct good and bad sides, ...You think there were distinct good and bad sides, okay, but try and put yourself in the shoes of another. If you were living in Poland in December of 1945 would you really feel like the good guys won? I'm not saying the Allies were not good or the Axis were not bad, just that it's more complicated than that. For Japan, certainly terrible things were done in the war but it was not a war they wanted to fight and they alone did not make it happen. Fascist Italy -never said it was laudable but was nowhere near as bad as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. Before the war many of the Allies thought it was great. Evelyn Waugh, G.K. Chesterton, Churchill, Ghandi, the Pope all had nice things to say about it, FDR modeled some of his "New Deal" programs on the policies of Fascist Italy. None of that makes them good but it does mean the "good guys" were not so superior.<br /><br />Now for the nitpicks:<br />1) France couldn't deal with that little terrorist uproar in central Africa without having the US Air Force to transport them down there -that's not a great power. The UK has also said, quite openly, that the only military actions they can take are in conjunction with the USA due to military downsizing. That's not my estimation, that's London's.<br /><br />2) I don't see the "problem" there. That's true (though not for all colonies) but they could have prioritized things differently, enacted changes to make them more profitable but it's rather beside the point considering that the socialists came to power before India was given up. Some, like Eden, still thought an empire in Africa could be maintained even after India was gone but that proved impossible.<br /><br />3) I totally disagree here. Stalin didn't just kill more people than Hitler, he killed more than twice as many and that was just for starters. Part of the problem here is that it wasn't just Eastern Europe. Communism was a global threat in a way Nazism never could be. Nazism was nationalistic, all about Germans being the super-race and if you weren't German that was going to be a pretty obviously stupid idea that was not appealing. Communism, on the other hand, is a poison than can and has infected people of every race, every religion, in every continent of the world. Hitler, despite what some think, also wasn't out to conquer the world, Stalin was -he actually said so and I don't mean some future triumph of communism eventually but he said the whole world would be communist within his lifetime.<br /><br />If Hitler had not been handed allies, his viciousness would not have gone beyond Europe. Stalin had already taken the Baltics, attacked Finland, occupied Mongolia and half Poland before joining the Allies. After that, he got the rest of Eastern Europe and then there were his surrogates, some of whom still oppress and massacre today from North Korea, China, Laos, Vietnam, numerous countries in Africa and South America almost all of which have wars to go along with them.<br /><br />So, does that mean it's better to let Hitler win? Of course not, that's why I said I hope to be able to present some alternatives, to show what could have been different so it wasn't a case of Nazi Germany being the world super-power or making the world safe for Stalinist Communism. There were ways of dealing with Hitler and times when he could have been dealt with that would not have been so costly and required such distasteful alliances.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-55735394352594665962015-01-09T07:30:18.229-06:002015-01-09T07:30:18.229-06:00I completely agree that people are far too black-a...I completely agree that people are far too black-and-white in their view of history and politics. I would argue that the Second World War was one of the few occasions where there very clearly was a distinct "good" and "bad" side. There is no doubt, really, that Nazism was evil. I know you've expressed doubt over some of the accusations levelled at the Japanese Empire in the past, but personally I'd have to concede that although I admire much of what Imperial Japan stood for their actions in that war clearly cast them as the villains of the piece. Fascist Italy was also hardly laudable, even if Mussolini was not a tyrant of the same calibre as Hitler.<br /><br />I have a few nitpicks to make;<br /><br />1) You say that "since World War II no European country has yet to achieve “great power” status again." But the United Kingdom and France are still major military powers, significant economic players, nuclear weapons states and permanent members of the UN Security Council. I think they definitely count as "Great Powers."<br /><br />2) Although you attribute the loss of Britain's African empire "the enormous cost of the welfare state British socialists were busy building," it bears mentioning that most of the British Empire was running at a loss by the mid-20th century. The cost of the colonies was offset by the revenue from the crowning jewel of the Empire, India; once India became independent it simply wasn't cost effective for the UK to hold on to its African colonies. Let's not forget that the Empire was motivated first and foremost by the profit incentive.<br /><br />3) It should also be said that while Hitler's government massacred fewer people than Stalin's, it killed more people in a shorter period of time. The Nazis were more efficient at killing. If the Nazis emerged victorious in the war, it's not entirely beyond the realms of possibility that they would have achieved an even higher death count that the Soviet Union. That said, I don't think a straightforward body count can be treated as a measure of how evil a person or regime is. I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that as bad as the USSR's occupation of eastern Europe was, a Nazi victory would hardly have been preferable (which I appreciate isn't something you actually suggest at any point). <br />The King's Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15072180373998425331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-30523816921814528382015-01-08T15:20:15.589-06:002015-01-08T15:20:15.589-06:00Hard for me to say, the idea is just too far out t...Hard for me to say, the idea is just too far out there. However, if the USA were to become something like a Commonwealth Realm, I'd be in favor of that -if that answers your question.MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-22256258509474481862015-01-08T08:22:59.970-06:002015-01-08T08:22:59.970-06:00Thanks for responding so quickly, theoretically wh...Thanks for responding so quickly, theoretically which form of monarchy would prefer the United States to be a federal monarchy like pre WW1 Germany or a national monarchy such as Britain?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-81856123337832733012015-01-08T01:24:12.506-06:002015-01-08T01:24:12.506-06:00I've addressed this on more than one specific ...I've addressed this on more than one specific posts. Do I "truly support monarchy in the United States"? I do, but not *for* the United States, at least not actively. If it happened, great, but it isn't going to and I'm more concerned about countries that are monarchies (defending them) or countries that used to be monarchies (restoring them).MadMonarchisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08083008336883267870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8783969302315257415.post-20754622166117485312015-01-07T22:42:17.881-06:002015-01-07T22:42:17.881-06:00I know that it is off topic but do you truly suppo...I know that it is off topic but do you truly support monarchy in the United States? If you do what kind of monarchy would you have us be? A federal monarchy with a monarch in every state (or region) and a high monarch for the entire country? Or a single national monarch (perhaps a union with the British royals)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com