Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

Eton wrote: Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.

Thats basically the jist of it, if we had not declared war on germany in 1914 it would have been in 1915 or 1916 ect..

[Jajo]

Eton wrote: Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.

That is not the only reason I feel nationalism is good the reason I have follow this line is because you blamed the war on nationalist feeling which to an extent is true. But too quote Blackadder 'George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki.' and while yes this is hyperbole it points to the other reason for the war, the German want for Empire.

'Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.'

the argument we seem to be having can be summarised in this point. It is wrong have wars but what happens when someone else is the aggressor do we sit back and feel all smug and superior because we have not stooped to the other sides level or do we defend our selves? The use of force as a means of defence is justification for its use but in order to use force one must have men to apply it and public support for it, this latter can be done via conscription, but this as is seen in Russia is not very effective as a volunteer will fight better than a conscript and be must less likely to desert. Therefore a feeling of nationalism allows us to circumvent this problem as it causes people to volunteer and courts public opinion. This is one example of how I see nationalism as good thing.

There seems to be this connection within a lot of people that 'Nationalism = Bad' and they will not see that life can be shades of grey.

P.S oh and I think the Treaty of London meant Britain had a duty to protect both the new kingdom of Belgium’s (at the time of the treaty) independence and there neutrality and Germany was violating both of those.

[thefranzkafkafront]

Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.

That is not the only reason I feel nationalism is good the reason I have follow this line is because you blamed the war on nationalist feeling which to an extent is true. But too quote Blackadder 'George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki.' and while yes this is hyperbole it points to the other reason for the war, the German want for Empire.

'Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.'

the argument we seem to be having can be summarised in this point. It is wrong have wars but what happens when someone else is the aggressor do we sit back and feel all smug and superior because we have not stooped to the other sides level or do we defend our selves? The use of force as a means of defence is justification for its use but in order to use force one must have men to apply it and public support for it, this latter can be done via conscription, but this as is seen in Russia is not very effective as a volunteer will fight better than a conscript and be must less likely to desert. Therefore a feeling of nationalism allows us to circumvent this problem as it causes people to volunteer and courts public opinion. This is one example of how I see nationalism as good thing.

There seems to be this connection within a lot of people that 'Nationalism = Bad' and they will not see that life can be shades of grey.

P.S oh and I think the Treaty of London meant Britain had a duty to protect both the new kingdom of Belgium’s (at the time of the treaty) independence and there neutrality and Germany was violating both of those.

I would say nationalism is bad myself, it eventually leads to racism when nationalities come into conflict. The entire basis on which nationalism is based (the idea of the nation) if frankly when broken down little more than a stupid concept, to die for an area of land supposedly 'ruled' by a group of people or even one single person is foolish.
The difference between a nation and a kids tree house club lies only in recognition.

Believing in an ideology thats a different kettle of fish.

[Eton]

By 1916 even Britain resorted to conscription, because dying for King and Country had strangely lost its alure by the end of 1915, I can't imagine why.

There comes a time when we have to ask ourselves if the costs we are bearing are worth what we are defending. Loosing millions of men to death and injury with our allies - (Czarist Russia among them!) against our traditional friends the Germans just wasn't worth it. All the more so when one considers that the Germans had no territorial ambitions against Britain herself or even Belgium or France. Only after the war had got underway did they claim parts of France and Belgium - they had to how else can you justify the deaths of over a million German soldiers if you have nothing to show for it.

Nationalism intermingled with imperialism led to WW1.

The soldiers at the christmas truce of 1914 recognised the insanity of it all, that it was a war fought by elites who used the nationalist sentiments of the ignorant masses to blow the crap out of each other.

Personally I prefer internationalism and socialism where the focus is on improving the quality of life of the people not killing each other for abstracts like 'national security'.

[Jajo]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.

That is not the only reason I feel nationalism is good the reason I have follow this line is because you blamed the war on nationalist feeling which to an extent is true. But too quote Blackadder 'George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki.' and while yes this is hyperbole it points to the other reason for the war, the German want for Empire.

'Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.'

the argument we seem to be having can be summarised in this point. It is wrong have wars but what happens when someone else is the aggressor do we sit back and feel all smug and superior because we have not stooped to the other sides level or do we defend our selves? The use of force as a means of defence is justification for its use but in order to use force one must have men to apply it and public support for it, this latter can be done via conscription, but this as is seen in Russia is not very effective as a volunteer will fight better than a conscript and be must less likely to desert. Therefore a feeling of nationalism allows us to circumvent this problem as it causes people to volunteer and courts public opinion. This is one example of how I see nationalism as good thing.

There seems to be this connection within a lot of people that 'Nationalism = Bad' and they will not see that life can be shades of grey.

P.S oh and I think the Treaty of London meant Britain had a duty to protect both the new kingdom of Belgium’s (at the time of the treaty) independence and there neutrality and Germany was violating both of those.

I would say nationalism is bad myself, it eventually leads to racism when nationalities come into conflict. The entire basis on which nationalism is based (the idea of the nation) if frankly when broken down little more than a stupid concept, to die for an area of land supposedly 'ruled' by a group of people or even one single person is foolish.
The difference between a nation and a kids tree house club lies only in recognition.

Believing in an ideology thats a different kettle of fish.

But nationalism when used in this context of WWI is not dying for the land but dieing for the way you live your life and that is an ideolgy.

Eton : 'All the more so when one considers that the Germans had no territorial ambitions against Britain herself or even Belgium or France. Only after the war had got underway did they claim parts of France and Belgium' that is total twaddle(i like that word :P), i have no idea what on earth could lead you to think that go look into the Schlieffen Plan which was drawn up before the war even stated and tell me Germany had no intention to claim land from France or Belgium.

'There comes a time when we have to ask ourselves if the costs we are bearing are worth what we are defending.'
They still where, do you realy think the Germans would have allowed a democratic system in France, Britain or Belgium?

[thefranzkafkafront]

Jajo wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: Jajo wrote: Eton wrote: Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.

As for Belgium, all the great powers had promised to respect her neutrality in any war not independence, but that is just pedantry. The point is, it was just an excuse, Britain went to war in 1914 for the same reason she went to war in all the previous wars of the last 400 years - to maintain the balance of power.

Were all those deaths worth maintaining the balance of power -no. It was Wilhelmine Germany not Nazi Germany afterall.

That is not the only reason I feel nationalism is good the reason I have follow this line is because you blamed the war on nationalist feeling which to an extent is true. But too quote Blackadder 'George, the British Empire at present covers a quarter of the globe, while the German Empire consists of a small sausage factory in Tanganiki.' and while yes this is hyperbole it points to the other reason for the war, the German want for Empire.

'Jajo, you seem to be implying that nationalism is good because it made millions of young men fight in the trenches and get slaughtered.'

the argument we seem to be having can be summarised in this point. It is wrong have wars but what happens when someone else is the aggressor do we sit back and feel all smug and superior because we have not stooped to the other sides level or do we defend our selves? The use of force as a means of defence is justification for its use but in order to use force one must have men to apply it and public support for it, this latter can be done via conscription, but this as is seen in Russia is not very effective as a volunteer will fight better than a conscript and be must less likely to desert. Therefore a feeling of nationalism allows us to circumvent this problem as it causes people to volunteer and courts public opinion. This is one example of how I see nationalism as good thing.

There seems to be this connection within a lot of people that 'Nationalism = Bad' and they will not see that life can be shades of grey.

P.S oh and I think the Treaty of London meant Britain had a duty to protect both the new kingdom of Belgium’s (at the time of the treaty) independence and there neutrality and Germany was violating both of those.

I would say nationalism is bad myself, it eventually leads to racism when nationalities come into conflict. The entire basis on which nationalism is based (the idea of the nation) if frankly when broken down little more than a stupid concept, to die for an area of land supposedly 'ruled' by a group of people or even one single person is foolish.
The difference between a nation and a kids tree house club lies only in recognition.

Believing in an ideology thats a different kettle of fish.

But nationalism when used in this context of WWI is not dying for the land but dieing for the way you live your life and that is an ideolgy.

The way you live your life, so dressing up in leaderhosen as oposed to a kilt is an ideology?

[Eton]

Jajo, Schlieffen was abattle plan. At the very most the Germans wanted the right to garrison the French border fortresses while they fought the Russians, the French would never agree hence Schlieffen, knock France out before the Russians mustered their army. The Germans had seen that a multinational empire just doesn't work - they had Austia-Hungary as their sole reliable empire, why add millions of Belgians and Frenchmen to their empire?
Furthermore, Germany was a democracy - by the standards of the time, the Reichstag still had to be consulted on issues and the Social Democrats were on the verge of winning control for the first time - some say that Germany had the choice of a civil war between the junker elites and the cities and socialists or an international war. Knowing that nationalism unites people and distracts their attention from the real problems they chose international war.

Defending democracy! The worse autocracy in the world was on our side! :roll:

I am more than a little disturbed that you think WW1 was worth fighting, even the survivors didn't think it was worth all their suffering.

[Jajo]

‘I am more than a little disturbed that you think WW1 was worth fighting, even the survivors didn't think it was worth all their suffering.’

Ok I wish to point out one thing before we continue I think WWI was a totally pointless war there was no need for it to happen. It made me feel sick in the stomach that I could have presented my self as other wise I have read a large amount of literature from the time and what was done to the soldiers is sickening and inhuman. But if I was back in 1914 with everything I know now I would still join up, why? I feel that one should defend against an aggressor other wise people will just walk over you when it pleases them.

You say that a multi-national empire does not work I disagree it can work but only with one nationality as supreme head over all the others which was not the case in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If Germany had broken through it could have occupied France due to the fact that they would not have been able to risk another army being raised in the place of the one that was destroyed during the Schlieffen plan.

My argument for a preservation of democracy stems from this idea that one nationality is supreme head over all others in a multinational empire and therefore the French would have been subordinate to the Germans without a representation democratically but as to what would have happened after the war in respect of French independence is anyone’s guess, one could say that if the SDP had come to power that the Germans would have sympathized with their French brethren and France would have become free again or if the war was long on the Russian side the voters could not have wanted to let go, but this is all speculation.

But I must say it is an interesting idea that the war a distraction from social revolution by the elite, very cynical of the elite (as all socialist are :P) but an interesting one none the less. Can you by any chance name a historian with this view so that I could read about it further?

[Eton]

The idea that Germany was on the brink of civil war is quite widespread, however stretching my mind back to college, I have the name 'Mawer' in my mind - I know I have spelt his name incorrectly. In anycase the gist of it is that ever since German unification, various means were used to keep the socialists down - none of them worked and at every election their representation grew so that by the 1912 election the Social Democrats were the largest party in the Reichstag but a coalition was formed from among the rest to keep the socialist out of power - but realistically how long can a coalition of Liberals, Catholic Centre and Nationalists hold it together. Combined with the fact that Junker votes were weighed three times more than urban(Socialist) votes, there was a lot of resentment.
The expansion of the navy was a prime example of foreign and defence policy being used to distract public attention from the domestic stiuation Admiral Tirpitz said so himself - his quote is in the Massie book 'Dreadnought'.

[Eton]

Mark Mazower - 'Dark continent'.
I may have confused him with Gildea - 'Barricades and Borders'.

Mazower is an interesting read but Gildea is a great academic but not a particularly inspiring writer.

James Joll's 'origins of WW1' definately talks about domestic tensions in Germany leading up to the war.

[The Redcoat]

I think having your flag everywhere and on everything, for example bread rolls, such as the US flag, cheapens what it represents and it's meaning. Anyway, we do not need to show our national pride by flying the St George's Cross relentlessly, we don't need/have to prove anything to anyone, our national pride is not embodied on a piece of fabric alone.

As for the English flag deemed racist, well your story didn't really show that, it said St George tie-pins at a prison were deemed racist. However the extreme racist parties have been using it for quite some time now. It's not a big deal, come the World Cup there will be Saint George's flags flying out from nearly every mans home across the country =D.

[CoolItMan]

It's foolish to be proud of the country you are born in, because one does not choose his birthplace.

[The Redcoat]

CoolItMan wrote: It's foolish to be proud of the country you are born in, because one does not choose his birthplace.

So you can only be proud of your country, because you were born there?

That's sad.

[Eton]

No I think he means it is all an accident of birth, how can you be proud of an accident? I quite agree with the last two posts.
We don't need to show our pride it is beneath us and furthermore - what have WE got to be proud about. All the great things were done by previous generations not us.
That is why I am proud to be European because at least we are stumbling closer to unity and ending the artificial division of our sub continent.

[angusrae]

Eton wrote: No I think he means it is all an accident of birth, how can you be proud of an accident? I quite agree with the last two posts.
We don't need to show our pride it is beneath us and furthermore - what have WE got to be proud about. All the great things were done by previous generations not us.
That is why I am proud to be European because at least we are stumbling closer to unity and ending the artificial division of our sub continent.

And that is why Extremist groups can use the St George Cross to divide England because most english people shrink from Civic Nationalism. Civic Nationalism embraces newcomers and welcomes them to the Fold of the nation And the Race and Religous Ghetto culture which prevails in most large European Cities shows why a Embracing Nationalism is required.
Take America for example Americans see themselves as American but take pride in their personal history. St Patrick's Day and Tartan Day are examples of this and I'm sure other Cultures celebrate their heritage as well. And while America is by no means as mixed as we believe. It is streets ahead of Europe when it comes to mixed race couples and areas. Europeans still divide themselves along Race and Religous lines and nationality is an excuse rather than a reason.

[bob.appleyard]

Quote: Europeans can wave the flag around because it doesn't mean as much to them ironically, two world wars have knocked the nationalist s**t out of them - perhaps the only good thing about the wars.

What about the recent French presidential elections between Chirac and Le Pen, both rather nationalist, one pretty much a neo-nazi.

I've studied nationalism, and the nation. Seems to me it's an arbitrary, territorially defined group of people, who coalesce under an imagined community, against an external threat (real or imaginary, violent or otherwise) in order to facilitate control and reinforce power structures. So I'm not that bothered about it, really.

[JDnCoke]

angusrae wrote: And that is why Extremist groups can use the St George Cross to divide England because most english people shrink from Civic Nationalism. Civic Nationalism embraces newcomers and welcomes them to the Fold of the nation And the Race and Religous Ghetto culture which prevails in most large European Cities shows why a Embracing Nationalism is required.
Take America for example Americans see themselves as American but take pride in their personal history. St Patrick's Day and Tartan Day are examples of this and I'm sure other Cultures celebrate their heritage as well. And while America is by no means as mixed as we believe. It is streets ahead of Europe when it comes to mixed race couples and areas. Europeans still divide themselves along Race and Religous lines and nationality is an excuse rather than a reason.

I don't get that impression from travelling in the US, and the stats most certainly don't paint that. While Europe isn't much better the relative lack of "immigrants" in comparison lessen the "problem".

[British patriot]

how can people say that our flag is racist. the flag is jst a symbul for englands efforts to become great, it also crossed over into Britain. We need this flag as a symbul of our pride.

I read an arguement about nationalisem on another post. I think nationalism is a good thing, yes it did encourage people to die in trenchs but for the most part its good it means people are proud of where they come from. As my name suggests i am proud to be British and why shouldnt other people.

The only way i think nationalism will become a problem is when we try to unite the world. People will not be able to see themselfs as european just their respective countrys. If we carnt unite our countrys then we cannot move on as people.

[thundertaker]

Nationalism is a good thing when not taken to excess, as happened during the first world war. It's the same principle with other virtues such as loyalty, which can be dangerous and wrong when focused on the wrong cause or person.......

[British patriot]

National;ism is good but not when it comes to other countrys. we tend to raise ourself above other countrys. and if nationalism is too strong then we will never have a world goverment