Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Conscription and the war(s) may have been unpopular in Quebec, but large numbers of Quebeckers served with distinction in both wars. These things are never cut-and-dried.

Yeah, that was exactly my point. Also, I'm sure large numbers of Germans served with distinction in both wars, and large number of Southerners served with distinction in the American Civil war. From the point of view of the common soldier, the main cause by far is your homeland, family, basically everything you've known and lived for.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Not necessarily, but the idea of the "clean Wehrmacht" has been thoroughly discredited. The number of war crimes committed by rank and file members, particularly on the eastern front, was pretty horrifying. Jews and Slavs were explicitly targeted, and there was a fair amount of explicit indoctrination of troops. As you said though, trying to pin war crimes on NCOs that in many cases were conscripted would be very problematic. Particularly considering the level of indoctrination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Wehrmacht

As they say, history is written by the winners.

Allied soldiers also committed a significant number of war crimes in Europe: murders of civilians, summary executions of prisoners, rapes, torture, etc.

A friend of mine's dad once recounted some of the faits d'armes of his fellow soldiers during WW2. Maybe the stories are exaggerated, but if they aren't some of it could definitely be considered war crimes. I still remember the name of the unit but it shall remain nameless given that it's unverifiable info. But it's still totally believable. War is hell. Which is a good reason to avoid having them at all costs.

And of course, one of the biggest war crimes in history IMO is the *second* atomic bomb on Nagasaki, given that the Japanese were running scared after the first one and were going to surrender anyway.

Bottom line is that bad things will happen when you send lots of groups of heavily armed hyper-stressed young men far from home into foreign countries and tell them they're the ''enemy''. Even if the ultimate cause they are fighting for is just.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by Acajack

As they say, history is written by the winners.

Allied soldiers also committed a significant number of war crimes in Europe: murders of civilians, summary executions of prisoners, rapes, torture, etc.

A friend of mine's dad once recounted some of the faits d'armes of his fellow soldiers during WW2. Maybe the stories are exaggerated, but if they aren't some of it could definitely be considered war crimes. I still remember the name of the unit but it shall remain nameless given that it's unverifiable info.

And of course, one of the biggest war crimes in history IMO is the *second* atomic bomb on Nagasaki, given that the Japanese were running scared after the first one and were going to surrender anyway.

Bottom line is that bad things will happen when you send lots of groups of heavily armed hyper-stressed young men far from home into foreign countries. Even if the ultimate cause they are fighting for is just.

Yep, all very true. You could probably consider large parts of the Allied bombing campaigns as a war crime. Which, IIRC is part of the reason the architects of the German bombing campaigns weren't targeted for war crimes.

However, I don't think it would be controversial to say that the explicit nature of war crimes committed by the Nazi regime makes them objectively worse than the Allies. If someone were to propose erecting a statue of a Wehrmacht General in the centre of Berlin, 70 years after the fact, that would be understandably problematic. Which is essentially what happened in the case of the civil war statues in question. I know you weren't trying to make that point - just going on a bit of a tangent here.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by niwell

If someone were to propose erecting a statue of a Wehrmacht General in the centre of Berlin, 70 years after the fact, that would be understandably problematic. Which is essentially what happened in the case of the civil war statues in question.

Out of curiosity though - if enough Berliners wanted to do that to make it happen, what should we do about it? Stop spending our tourist dollars in Berlin maybe (which I don't see having much of an impact), but I don't see it going anywhere beyond that.

As you say, it would be problematic, but that's only because an overwhelming % of Berliners would be very strongly opposed to the idea. If most Berliners wished it happened, then would us non-Berliners be able to declare it problematic from our armchairs?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by niwell

Yep, all very true. You could probably consider large parts of the Allied bombing campaigns as a war crime. Which, IIRC is part of the reason the architects of the German bombing campaigns weren't targeted for war crimes.

However, I don't think it would be controversial to say that the explicit nature of war crimes committed by the Nazi regime makes them objectively worse than the Allies. If someone were to propose erecting a statue of a Wehrmacht General in the centre of Berlin, 70 years after the fact, that would be understandably problematic. Which is essentially what happened in the case of the civil war statues in question. I know you weren't trying to make that point - just going on a bit of a tangent here.

Of course. None of the Allied régimes encouraged (or at least deliberately looked the other way at) behaviour that could be considered war crimes by their soldiers. Whereas the Nazi régime most definitely did.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by lio45

Out of curiosity though - if enough Berliners wanted to do that to make it happen, what should we do about it? Stop spending our tourist dollars in Berlin maybe (which I don't see having much of an impact), but I don't see it going anywhere beyond that.

I do think it would put a diplomatic chill between Canada and Germany.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I do think it would put a diplomatic chill between Canada and Germany.

Wouldn't it depend a bit on the general being honoured?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Wouldn't it depend a bit on the general being honoured?

I can't see how it would make any difference. I also can't see a "diplomatic chill". But then the scenario seems most unlikely.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I can't see how it would make any difference. I also can't see a "diplomatic chill". But then the scenario seems most unlikely.

I was thinking along the lines of Claus Von Stauffenberg or Erwin Rommel, but maybe even that would be too much.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I do think it would put a diplomatic chill between Canada and Germany.

Sure, no one says actions don't have consequences.

I don't agree with comparing the South and it's leadership to Nazis. Southern leaders fought to keep a system in place that was fundamentally wrong so they could continue their own way of life. Nazis fought to instate an insane social and belief system based on pseudo science on the rest of the world. Southerners defended themselves, Nazis attacked others.

Let me ask this question: what would the world have done if Hitler had no ambitions beyond the borders of Germany?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I do think it would put a diplomatic chill between Canada and Germany.

We're still doing lots of business with China (didn't Trudeau actually even go there to lick their boots on a commercial mission not too long ago?) yet I'm sure they've got some questionable statues over there.

If Germany wanted to buy Ontario-made "Jeeps" we all know we'd sell them regardless, Hitler statues or not.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

Let me ask this question: what would the world have done if Hitler had no ambitions beyond the borders of Germany?

Pretty much what they did from 1933-1939.

Or in Bosnia 1992-1995.

Or Rwanda in 1994.

Not much that was truly effective at helping people in danger.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by niwell

If someone were to propose erecting a statue of a Wehrmacht General in the centre of Berlin, 70 years after the fact, that would be understandably problematic. Which is essentially what happened in the case of the civil war statues in question. I know you weren't trying to make that point - just going on a bit of a tangent here.

Adolf Galland and Erwin Rommel are still celebrated Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht Generals today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...d-1318925.html

http://www.history.com/topics/world-...n-rommel-erwin

Germany even named a class of guided missile destroyers after Admiral Lütjens (Bismarck Battlegroup Commander) which included the ships Rommel and Molders (Luftwaffe Ace).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B...lass_destroyer

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Adolf Galland and Erwin Rommel are still celebrated Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht Generals today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...d-1318925.html

http://www.history.com/topics/world-...n-rommel-erwin

Germany even named a class of guided missile destroyers after Admiral Lütjens (Bismarck Battlegroup Commander) which included the ships Rommel and Molders (Luftwaffe Ace).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B...lass_destroyer

Nothing wrong with this. There are war heroes on all sides. Rommel in particular was very well regarded by the Allies during the war. He fought well, but honourably and treated any prisoners of war generously. If he had survived the war, he would not have been prosecuted.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Adolf Galland and Erwin Rommel are still celebrated Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht Generals today.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pe...d-1318925.html

http://www.history.com/topics/world-...n-rommel-erwin

Germany even named a class of guided missile destroyers after Admiral Lütjens (Bismarck Battlegroup Commander) which included the ships Rommel and Molders (Luftwaffe Ace).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B...lass_destroyer

Yeah and I don't see anything wrong with that. It's a bit of a different situation than a public statue. Similarly having something in a museum is different.

[MolsonExport]

Posters offering up apologetic, "false equivalencies" are badly mistaken at best or more likely, extraordinarily disingenuous (a tactic beloved by the Alt-right: "But Hillary!!"), and hopefully, not trying to disguise their acceptance of bald-faced racism or justifying to their conscious their own latent prejudices ("all lives matter").

Oskar Schindler and Heinrich Himmler were both members of the Nazi party, and both profited off of the persecution of European Jewry. There are fucking clear reasons why the former is honored at Yad Vashem and the latter is considered one of the most abhorrent people of the 20th century.

The intellectual dishonesty evidenced in this thread is nauseating.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So to suggest that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers fought primarily because they thought that "the black man's only place was picking cotton in the fields under the hot sun" seems like a huge intellectual short cut to me.

Acajack, this is getting ridiculous. That the Confederate soldiers were fighting to preserve slavery against the northern "aggressors" who were coming to "free the slaves" is exactly what the Civil War was about when it came to the motivations for fighting.









Again, it's amazing to be saying this in 2017. The U.S. Civil War was about slavery. The Second World War was about fighting fascism. Etc. They were about other things too, and they were complex, and there were nice Germans and racist Union soldiers from Buffalo, but the motivations behind the fighting were actually pretty clear.

Think about it: the lack of certainty was the main reason that the U.S. invasion of Vietnam stuttered and faltered. The mantra repeated so often as to become a cliche in the 1960s was: "I would have fought Hitler, but I don't see why I should go halfway across the world to fight the Vietnamese when it's none of our business."

Sometimes things are murky and muddled. Like the First World War. Sometimes things are less so. The U.S. Civil War and the Second World War are remarkable for their comparative clarity of purpose and motivation. War is hell, as Robert Graves makes clear about the first big one in Goodbye to All That. It was still hell in the second big one, but you don't hear too many people claiming it was unnecessary to resist Fascism.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Did anybody really say that? I certainly said nothing to that effect.

But I do think that the overall Democratic/progressive/leftist approach to all of this down there is moving them further away from regaining power with every day that passes.

Maybe not in so many words, and I wasn't trying to call you out specifically. Really though, there are a lot of attempts at "balance" and "it's complicated" going on here that I don't quite understand. If the theory is that the allegedly overzealous left is seen as reason for centrists to check into white supremacy, I think that says a lot about our underlying culture in a terrifying way, and is a commentary much more on the centrists than the left.

For the most part the tone of this discussion sounds a lot more apologist in nature than I would have expected. I'm not sure what I expected...but it wasn't this.

[wg_flamip]

It's worth noting that these monuments to the Confederacy weren't erected solely as an f-you to the victorious North, and—at least in this present debate—it's not the descendants of Union soldiers primarily leading the charge to end the commemoration of their ancestors' butchers.

These monuments were erected in towns and cities with large African-American populations. African-Americans have even come to comprise the majority population in some of these communities (e.g., New Orleans). These monuments were erected by the descendants of soldiers who not only killed white Union soldiers in order to defend the institution of slavery (and the attendant on-going rape, murder and brutalization of African-American slaves) but also committed heinous acts against African-American civilians (including free citizens of invaded states). Additionally, these monuments were imposed on public space by those who constructed and enforced Jim Crow and those who practised the extra-legal terrorization of African-American communities (e.g., lynching or church burning).

To those who'd claim a community has a right to commemorate its war dead, remember that these challenges to the monuments are coming from within the communities themselves and have often been supported by democratically elected local governments (as was the case in Charlottesville). This isn't really about revisionism or censorship but rather is the expansion of a franchise: namely, it opens up the public sphere to the community as a whole to tell its story in full.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

If the theory is that the allegedly overzealous left is seen as reason for centrists to check into white supremacy, I think that says a lot about our underlying culture in a terrifying way, and is a commentary much more on the centrists than the left.

It's not centrists who are going to that extreme, it's people on the right. But you've touched on something fundamental to our current malaise. It's hilarious that it's the left that get called "snowflakes" when it's actually people on the right/alt-right who are holding their hands up to their ears and shouting "la-la-la can't hear you" whenever they're confronted by ideas about racism and injustice in society.

It's one thing to critique the social justice warriors, who really do have it coming for the idiotic extremes they go to. It's quite another to claim that something like "white pride" is the equal and opposite reaction to Black Lives Matter (whom I personally find problematic as well, but still). Not saying anyone here is going that far.

But I'm a centrist myself, so I entertain both sides, even as I understand that my own sense of balance doesn't play out in the messy political arena where it's the extremes that exert pressure and pull on people more than "hey, let's relax and consider all the options here." For example, I'm on board when it comes to critiques of systemic racism. But I'm also on board with recognizing the value of our European heritage in North America, for all its faults. I'll happily nitpick at the patently false mantra that "we're all immigrants here," for example. And while I think it's obvious that the "Canadian Values Test" was a barely concealed expression of Tory xenophobia to appeal to the baser instincts of, erm, the base, I also think a blithe attitude to immigration is unsustainable over the long term (even if our current policies work just fine).