In the spring of 1984, I went to the northwest of France, to Normandy, to prepare an NBC documentary on the fortieth anniversary of D-Day, the massive and daring Allied invasion of Europe that marked the beginning of the end of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. There, I underwent a life-changing experience.
Ten years later, I returned to Normandy for the fiftieth anniversary of the invasion, and by then I had come to understand what this generation of Americans means to history. It is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced.
- The Greatest Generation, by Tom Brokaw
Every sentence of this gushing tribute is hogwash, well, except for the part about Brokaw visiting Normandy. This invasion did not mark the beginning of the end of Hitler’s Third Reich. If this is the criterion through which one is to judge “the greatest generation any society has ever produced,” one need look to a time about eighteen months earlier and more than three-thousand kilometers to the east.
Stalingrad: The City That Defeated the Third Reich, by Jochen Hellbeck.
The battle of Stalingrad – the most ferocious and lethal battle in human history – ended on February 2, 1943. With an estimated death toll of a million, the bloodletting at Stalingrad far exceeded that of Verdun, one of the costliest battles of World War I.
So begins Hellbeck. The book is compiled from 215 eyewitness accounts – an oral testimony taken during and after the battle. Testimony is taken from general down to cook, male and female, soldiers and nurses and political officers. The book was prepared for publication by a joint commission of German and Russian scholars and historians.
From this book, there are a couple of different themes I will examine in the coming days. For now, an introduction.
Stalingrad. Almost six months of fighting; between the two sides, over two million combatants; of these, almost two million killed, wounded or captured. A key result of the German defeat: Germany moved significant military resources from west (i.e. where Brokaw’s generation would eventually fight a drastically weakened Germany) to east to deal with the losses and the newfound Soviet momentum.
While Operation Barbarossa did not result in a defeat of the Soviets in one massive operation, the German advance continued – delayed but not halted. In the early days of the battle, there was no reason to believe Stalingrad would hold. From Captain Afanassyev, at Stalingrad on August 20, 1942:
In fact, it was terrifying. When I stepped outside for a look, I was overcome by doubt; the advancing German army was enormous….there’s no way we could hold out against this. That was how I felt then. One look into the periscope would send me into a panic. It wasn’t exactly cowardice but the feeling that destroying everything that was moving at us was impossible.
Had Stalingrad been lost, Germany’s path to Moscow would have been open from the south; Germany’s push into and through the Caucasus and Caspian oil and into the Middle East would have advanced unimpeded.
Newspapers, political leaders, and generals in Germany, Britain and the Soviet Union understood this battle in exactly these terms. For example, from the diary of British General Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff:
I felt Russia could never hold, Caucasus was bound to be penetrated, and Abadan (our Achilles heel) would be captured with the consequent collapse of Middle East, India, etc. After Russia's defeat how were we to handle the German land and air forces liberated? England would be again bombarded, threat of invasion revived... And now! We start 1943 under conditions I would never have dared to hope. Russia has held, Egypt for the present is safe. There is a hope of clearing North Africa of Germans in the near future...Russia is scoring wonderful successes in Southern Russia.
Up until this point, for over a year the British suffered defeat after defeat. The United States had yet to enter the war Europe in any meaningful way. It was the Soviets doing the heavy lifting.
Stalingrad further represented a symbol. The city named after Stalin himself, so-named because of the legend of Stalin’s efforts in The Battle of Tsaritsyn (the former name of the city) between Bolshevik forces and the White Army during the Russian Civil War. Stalin would not lose this symbol, regardless of the cost.
An interesting aside: when things were going poorly for the Bolsheviks in the battle, Trotsky was furious with Stalin – ordering his return to Moscow. As the tide soon changed, this went no further.
Returning to Stalingrad…from a BBC reporter, in the aftermath of the Stalingrad Battle:
The streets of Stalingrad, if you can give the name to open spaces between ruins, still bear all the marks of battle….Stalingrad can never be repaired. It will have to be rebuilt from the beginning…..There is a real party atmosphere among these people today. They are the proudest men and women I’ve ever seen. They know they’ve done a terrific job, and they’ve done it well.
Consider the circumstances: both Hitler and Stalin ordered no possibility of retreat; for each leader, this was to be a fight to the death. The Soviet defenses had a natural barrier – the Volga River. The river was not used in defense as you might imagine – it was not a barrier between Soviet and German troops. The river was behind the city and behind the Soviets; it was a barrier against retreat.
If this wasn’t enough, the Soviets set up over forty blocking squads – not to block the Germans, but to block those Soviet soldiers who were attempting to leave the battle.
Stalin did not evacuate the city of civilians; it was felt that the presence of civilians would cause his army to fight harder. As if to demonstrate that some men are more equal than others, this order did not include the families of the managerial staff of the city. It also didn’t include horses, pigs, and sheep. It also didn’t include tractors.
Over five months of urban warfare – block by block, building by building, floor by floor, room by room. Hand grenades, bayonets, flame throwers, knives in the gut, hands on necks. First the Soviets with backs against the wall – the Volga River – followed by the Germans hopelessly encircled; and no winter clothes for the invaders.
When the battle was finally over and the last of the Germans surrendered, they were wearing shreds of blankets for shoes and sheets for overcoats. The German command occupied basements covered in filth and human waste.
There were piles of corpses; at the end of the battle, thousands collected every day. Mountains of bodies, thousands of truckloads. In conclusion, an entire German army disappeared from the face of the earth. Germany was on defense for the remainder of the war.
On January 30, 1943, Göring addressed the German people – Hitler could not bring himself to do this. The date is symbolic: the tenth anniversary of the rise of the Nazis to power. He spoke of the Germans at Stalingrad – by now, all lost.
He compared these lost Germans to the heroes in the The Nibelungenlied, translated as The Song of the Nibelungs. The earliest manuscript dates from the 13th century; however the epic has roots in pre-Christian German oral traditions.
The epic is divided into two parts, the first dealing with the story of Siegfried and Kriemhild, the wooing of Brünhild and the death of Siegfried at the hands of Hagen, and Hagen's hiding of the Nibelung treasure in the Rhine (Chapters 1–19). The second part deals with Kriemhild's marriage to Etzel, her plans for revenge, the journey of the Burgundians to the court of Etzel, and their last stand in Etzel's hall (Chapters 20–39).
From a summary of the poem, the final chapters 33 – 39:
A great slaughter ensued: Hungarians and Nibelungs battled against each other. Each side lost many brave warriors, but the Nibelungs were greatly outnumbered, and in the end every one of them was killed. Gunther and Hagen were the last to die. Both were captured by the Hungarians. Kriemhild ordered that Gunther's head be cut off and then delivered to Hagen. Following this grisly act, Kriemhild herself, now armed with the sword Balmung, struck off Hagen's head. Her revenge was complete, although it had come at a terrible price.
What came next for the Nibelungs after this terrible defeat we don’t know; what happened after Stalingrad to their German contemporaries is well documented.
Disregard ideology, the evil of government power, all of it. Stalingrad represents what defense of a national homeland means to people who value their national homeland. Stalingrad represents the will of the natives to defend as a greater force that the will of the invaders to conquer.
Yet the importance of the battle for the Soviets and for the defeat of the Nazis is a tale barely known in the west. Certainly, you would never hear of it from Tom Brokaw.
If one is to use as the scale a defense in the face of all odds, a defense when defeat means total defeat, Stalingrad offers witness to the greatest generation.
Yes, it was the Great Patriotic War between the (International Socialists) Communists and the (National Socialists) Nazis where the Communists won. Horray!!! The more accurate statement is that the Stalinists and their Semi-Fascist Friends Won over the Stalinist Copy Cats and their fully Fascist friends.ReplyDelete
We could more accurately say that Tom Brokaw's greatest generation made Europe and Asia safe for communism.Delete
BM, have you read Freedom Betrayed by Herbert Hoover? It is a long book but I cannot recommend it highly enough. As a POTUS he was not much but as a writer, historian and documentarian he might have few equals.Delete
His book contains information, thanks to his friendship with Poland's Ambassador to these uSA, that underscores how FDR made "Europe and Asia safe for communism."
Yes. It was one of the first books for which I wrote a multi-volume set of posts. I neglected to label these by author, but if you are interested they are pretty easy to find - beginning February 18 2012 through May 31 2012.Delete
Most of my posts through this period are based on this book.
Let we not forget the sheer power of the German war machine and the absolute fury they unleashed on the Russian front. The Nazis didn't really care much for Great Britain, France, or ultimately the United States, as they saved their most heinous weapons for the Soviets. The details that came out following the fall of the iron curtain were just incredible and speak to how technologically advanced Nazi Germany actually was, how insanely driven the Russians were to defend the East, and how positively stupid Hitler was to lose it all via several massive strategic blunders.ReplyDelete
Without getting into the war itself which would be a long post (suffice to say the wrong side lost and international finance won), I will note the increasing absurdity of "greatest generation" myth.ReplyDelete
If the purpose of the war was to "liberate" Europe then surely we would see a free and prosperous Europe today no?
The victors of the war have done everything they can to destroy Europe and flood it with humanoid life forms who don't even know what WW2 is. In America its no better. The men who fought that war did not do so to ensure their children would be forced at bayonet point to go to school with negros.
It was a European civil war that in the long run has done nothing but benefit non-europeans at our expense.
I would like to respond to your statement and also to your link to a video, both of which I found repugnant. While I do not disagree with many of your observations concerning the war and I totally concur with bionic mosquito that a shared culture is essential for the survival of a people, I completely disagree with you that that culture should be limited to an ethnic or even a spiritually compatible people.
The culture I wish to cultivate, join and perpetuate is the culture of individual responsibility, individual freedom and absence of racists, statists and control freaks, of which I perceive from your statements and links that you are one.
I do not care at all, what religion, pigmentation, gender, ethnic origin or nationality you were or are. I care whether you believe in equal rights, the evils of statism, the Non Aggression Principle and property rights. If you do, we can be neighbors. If you believe in the superiority of a particular ethnic or national group or even worse, the domination of same, we cannot.
Having said this, I still enjoy your participation and perspective in this ongoing debate and conversation and I very much, thank bionic mosquito for allowing all sides to participate.
When someone posts as "Anonymous" and signs as "Tahn", isn't that a sign of schizophrenia?Delete
Tahn, I, too, have difficulty with the places UC wants to go. With this said, I think that your objective...
"I do not care at all, what religion, pigmentation, gender, ethnic origin or nationality you were or are. I care whether you believe in equal rights, the evils of statism, the Non Aggression Principle and property rights."
...is futile without, first, some other common characteristics in the people. Then again, this has been the point of my ongoing dialogue on these issues - to flush all of this out. I have to say, I, personally, still have much work to do.
Vonu - that really wasn't necessary.
None of this is necessary, but it goes to credibility.Delete
Vonu, LOL, it could just mean that I’m a technically illiterate old geezer. However, I’m pretty sure someone who attacks the poster rather than the argument is using an argumentum ad hominem. No problem though, I appreciate your input. Sticks and stones…..Delete
BM, I too at first, felt that it would be easier to establish a “libertarian rapport” with those of the same or similar “culture”, language etc., but then I thought of trying to establish that with Hillary, compared to an immigrant woman of a different color and language fleeing death or maiming under a tyrannical Shiria oppressor. Which one would be easier to reach agreement with? I also know people personally that would never be able to choose such a freedom or accept the responsibility that goes with it.
Those very traits of a belief in “equal rights, the Non Aggression Principle, property rights (starting with one’s own body) and the evils of statism " ARE a common culture, a common belief system.
Perhaps I am using “culture” improperly but I believe it would be far easier to establish a cordial relationship and common characteristics with the immigrant than an avowed Tyrannical Statist.
Having said that, I agree with you that we should be limiting or closing our borders to those who do not believe in the NAP and other libertarian principles of individual freedom. I also believe that the “government” is not likely to use this criteria in allowing immigration, so shut the gate. Self defense requires it and IMHO, the NAP allows it.
I so thank you for your work and energy in this matter and include all of the commenter’s in my gratitude, especially UC and even Vonu.
Peace, Love and Brotherhood
Through Equal Rights and Equal Firepower.
I see that you are an "anti-racist" and have accepted the values of the Cultural Marxist revolution uncritically. Race is not merely a social construct but a reality that can determine the fate of a civilization. For example large numbers of Africans will recreate African society wherever they go. See Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, or Haiti. While you are at it check out humanbiodiversity.com for information concerning racial realities. If this makes you uncomfortable then your problem is not with me but with reality.
Furthermore, the learned elders who rule us use race as a battering ram against our rights, since the failure the American negro to live up to the standards of white civilization cannot be blamed on the negro's nature but on white "racism" which leads to the state engaging in the endless process of trying to make that which is unequal equal.
All honest men should be able to admit that forced integration was undesirable and tyrannical since why would it need to be forced if it is so great?
You call me a "control freak" but do you not see that label better applied to the people responsible for the forced busing of white children into black schools? The post-war racial tyranny was *imposed* on us- very libertarian.
The "greatest generation" fought a war that resulted in social democratic tyranny in Western Europe, Communism in Eastern Europe, and Soft Communism in America. Like Patton, many of those who fought came to understand that their sacrifices were in vain. If they had been told before hand what was going to happen they probably would have revolted.
If you think culture has nothing to do with race, and the destruction of culture by power is not simultaneously an attack on the white man then you should go to tell it to the boer. Tell the boers who are being genocided by savage African communists and their Zionist masters that race is just skin color. Tell them the blacks just haven't read enough libertarian literature.
Finally, the video I linked to is both hilarious and true. You are humorless and anti-white.
Tahn, regarding Hillary...I have come to view a common culture as a necessary, but not sufficient, pre-condition.Delete
Correction from above:Delete
The link should read humanbiologicaldiversity.com
Great resource. Go forth and learn boomerfriend.
Also a point on Tahn's second post. If by the wave of the ever present libertarian magic wand-deus ex machina-we were to have a libertarian order. It would undoubtedly be majority white. For three reasons.
1. Liberty is valued far more by whites than by others. You might say it's the product of Anglo culture, or "a white thing."
2. Whites will be the group most able to abide by the order do to their collective racial behavior being more amiable to cooperation (high trust) and having higher IQs than the people of the global south.
3. If racial preference is allowed you will have restrictive covenants that will lead to all white societies. Which will be preferable to people who lack strong racial preference for reasons 1 and 2.
In other words, true private property rights will lead to de facto white nationalism. You may not be willing to admit this, but the left understands it, which is why they consider libertarians to be racist (and why Jeff Tucker prostrates himself to prove otherwise).
The left understands where private property leads far better than naive race denying libertarians.
UC, I am not “anti-racist” but am “pro-libertarian”. I would rather be neighbors to a black family that believed in the NAP, than a White family that did not. My lack of using race as a measure of people is not from some “Cultural Marxist” identity (LOL) but from the experience of meeting various people of color who lived the libertarian lifestyle and from knowing many white people who did not and even believed in Statist, totalitarian control of others. Color and race is irrelevant in the philosophy of humans and peace.Delete
I totally accept your statement that race is used to divide and hopefully conquer us but is that not what you are attempting also? I also agree that “forced integration” is unacceptable, as is forced separation or forced anything. So is forced participation in public schools or prohibiting a business from “shunning” a person. So is forced government.
The fact that many groups and societies have banded together according to race or even tribes within a race, does not mean that it has to continue or that there are not those of all races who will judge others by their character, not their color.
I do regret using that word concerning you as I generally believe in avoiding epithets period. I apologize. Hemingway said to “write while drunk and edit when sober”. I erred in at least one of those.
I also agree with you about the Second World War, in fact all wars except the Revolutionary War and the War of Rebellion against the Northern invaders. I believe in defensive wars only, just as I believe in self defense only, rather than aggression.
As to humor, it is much like what the Preacher said when he saw an old woman kiss a cow. “My, my, there is just no accounting for taste.” Both taste and humor is subjective UC.
I would like to say again that I appreciate your views and responses on Bionic’s threads. On this particular issue, I disagree. I would leave you with a quote from Dr. Peterson, who I first heard about on this forum. “The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that’s more racist than that, it’s absolutely abhorrent ...”
Peace, Love and Brotherhood
Through Equal Rights and Equal Firepower and Civility.
There would be little point in closing the border "to those who do not believe in the NAP and other libertarian principles of individual freedom," when few of the members of the major political parties would test out in the upper quadrant of the Diamond Chart after taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz. Anyone who doubts the NAP should take the quiz at theadvocates.org/quiz/quiz.phpDelete
Bionic Mosquito, Concerning “a common culture as a necessary, but not sufficient, pre-condition.”Delete
Look at all the cultures, peoples and races who fled to America in its early years. They were often fleeing oppression and always seeking “property, freedom and opportunity” or even "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". I believe this alone is sufficient and a belief in the NAP is necessary. Property, freedom and the NAP, is the required culture to believe in although it would be easier of course, if they were historically Americans in culture and language but not necessary
Again I thank you for your most stimulating and thoughtful writing.
"The left understands where private property leads far better than naive race denying libertarians."Delete
I will suggest that the left understands many things about where private property leads far better than naive libertarians of all types. Self- and socially-destructive libertine behavior, while permissible under the NAP, would be drastically reduced and actively shunned in a private property order.
Private charities insist on accountability. From whom would the perpetually lazy and perpetually high demand and then receive perpetual support?
"I believe this alone is sufficient and a belief in the NAP is necessary."Delete
You believe that it is acceptable to have sex orgies in your front yard - not a violation of the NAP. My neighbors and I disagree.
Even if we all buy into the NAP, do you really think the NAP will protect you from our baseball bats? If you draw a gun, do you believe we are not also so armed, and that there are more of us?
Which philosophy will draw the human action? The NAP or the generally accepted culture?
I will go you one better than your Hillary example: I would rather live in a neighborhood full of Pat Buchanans than I would a neighborhood full of libertine libertarians.
And I bet my neighborhood will be the one with a future.
And I thank you for your continuing comments.
I completely agree that the worst tyrants and terrorists are within the two main political parties and inside the halls of power.
Took the test years ago when it was recommended by a black man, Dr. Walter Williams.
bm stated “You believe that it is acceptable to have sex orgies in your front yard - not a violation of the NAP. My neighbors and I disagree.“Delete
Shunning of those you disapprove of, both socially and economically, is an effective and libertarian method of social control as are covenants, conditions and restrictions (CCR’s) on land, both of which are of course limited by today’s statist government. Don’t forget a cash buyout of the offenders. Fence building on your own land is also an effective method of blocking out sights. Loud sounds could be deemed “aggression”.
Whatever the dispute, I believe that the individuals involved, especially if they are “libertarians”, are better able to work it out, than an authoritarian government. Perfect no but better than tyranny.
If you or your neighbors attacked someone for voluntary acts on their own property, you are not libertarians but aggressors.
I see no future for libertines and would use the above methods to exclude them from my community, although I would have to recognize their right to have their own communities, as long as they lasted.
I am trying to imagine ol Pat as a neighbor and he might really be better than a libertine, if there was no government for him to call on.
If by “the generally accepted culture” you mean a mob rule (democratic) , totalitarian statist regime ruled by “mala prohibita” edicts and enforced through threats and intimidation, I see no future for it.
Liberty and utopia are not synonymous.
> My lack of using race as a measure of people is not from some “Cultural Marxist”....
No, it was your use of the term racist as a pejorative, implying there is something wrong with white racial preference or noticing behavioral patterns on racial lines. The concept of "racism" has been pushed by deranged ashkenazi communists (cultural marxists) throughout the post war era to cast aspersions on Anglo-American society and aggrandize power for themselves as the champions of the poor oppressed coloreds.
>Color and race is irrelevant in the philosophy of humans and peace.
Wrong. Africa is savage and violent place populated by a majority
of people who don't even know what philosophy is. Tell me again how race has nothing to do with the communist takeover of South Africa. While you are at it, explain why it's is ashkenazi who are responsible for the cultural Marxist take over of American institutions.
>from the experience of meeting various people of color who lived the libertarian lifestyle and from knowing many white people who did not
I would rather live next to a black man who respects my racial preference than a homosexual white communist who wants section 8 housing implemented in the neighborhood, but I would not be ok with him dating my daughter. You are holding up outliers when I am talking about the group mean. We are dealing with biological realities and there is no guarantee his kids won't be a regression to the mean. Furthermore, you have failed to address what blacks have done to every American city where they become a majority. The libertarian ones you speak of are exiles from negro society.
>“The idea that you can target an ethnic group with a collective crime regardless of the innocence or guilt of the constituent elements of that group, there is absolutely nothing that’s more racist than that, it’s absolutely abhorrent ...”
This is silly. I am not accusing Africans of a collective crime. I am pointing out behavior patterns and claiming a racial preference. My observations are in line with reality. Blacks commit far more violent crimes than whites (and against whites). I am not saying they are all criminals but that being black is a powerful predictor of criminality and has a biological explanation. Honest black men like Tommy Sotomayor admit this.
You seem like an honest guy and I appreciate you engaging on this fairly, but I suspect you are a boomer and as such you are unlikely to be receptive to new information and are completely out of touch with the racial hellscape younger white men have to live in.
We are going to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children whether you like it or not. If we can't do this there is no hope of anything remotely "libertarian" every existing.
You believe in both "equal rights" and the "non-aggression principle" at the same time? These are mutually exclusive. Given the content of your posts here it is clear that "equal rights" is what what you give precedence to, and that unequal outcomes are the fault of white racism.
“Shunning of those you disapprove of, both socially and economically…”Delete
We tried shunning. You are the over-sexed neighbor; were you really upset that we no longer invited you to Bible study and prayer group?
“If you or your neighbors attacked someone for voluntary acts on their own property, you are not libertarians but aggressors.”
I understand libertarian theory better than most, but this rebuttal demonstrates that you miss the point. I will ask again…knowing everything you know about human nature and given the scenario I painted above:
Which philosophy will draw the human action? The NAP or the generally accepted culture? Heaven help us, I hope you can offer a thoughtful answer. I can only imagine one answer to this question given my scenario; to have another requires belief in a man not yet created.
By generally accepted culture, I mean we don’t accept front-lawn daily sex orgies in our neighborhood – even if it is on your property. Remember, liberty and utopia are not synonymous.
I can only state my beliefs. Does racism exist? Of course. White racism, black racism, whatever color racism, there are people that judge others by their pigmentation. There are even those that judge others by their hair style or clothing. I prefer to judge others by their philosophy in how they conduct themselves, especially as it relates to their philosophy in controlling or more specifically, NOT controlling, other people.
I do not believe in controlling other’s, even if I disapprove of their lifestyle, morality or actions EXCEPT “No one has a right to initiate aggression against another” and the corollary, “everyone has the right to self defense”. That also means I do not believe that others have the right to control me, UNLESS I have initiated aggression against another.
Their actions and beliefs in this matter mean more to me than skin color or clothing and I choose to judge others by this philosophy, rather than their color or race.
I would no more judge a rabid dog by the color of their hair, rather than the froth in their mouth.
Do you have a “right” to be bias in your discrimination? Absolutely. In my libertarian community, if you wanted to hang a sign on the door of your business or home that stated “No Blacks”, I would support your “right” to do so, just as I would support the right of a black businessman to hang a sign on their door, “No Whites”. Now I probably wouldn’t financially support either of you but I would support your “right” to do so.
I said “Color and race is irrelevant in the philosophy of humans and peace.” I stand by this statement. You have brought up several situations in other countries where a majority of one color have risen up against another, even cases where they have risen up against people of their own color but a different tribe. Of course this has happened, because there are always those who would use race as a dividing issue and want power and control. However, if there is ONE person of that race who disagrees and who judges others by the content of their character or philosophy, rather than their pigmentation, then I would be correct and you would be wrong, in judging an entire race by the actions of a majority. I will judge them individually.
You talk about a “group mean” and I refuse to judge an entire people by the group. This is where we differ. Again, I respect your right to believe this and live how you wish, as long as you do not use or threaten force to do so and do not require me to choose the same values.
I do not believe the “non aggression principle” and “equal rights” are mutually exclusive. When I say “equal rights” I mean equal in “authority” or “power over others”. I do not mean equal outcome, income, education, IQ or any other type of egalitarian equalization, God forbid.
Shunning would include the entire spectrum of you and your neighbor’s activities and not just bible study, which I agree, is probably not effective against a libertine.
When they went to shop for groceries or gas or to buy property, the business owners state “We Do Not Want Your Business, Be Gone”. Of course, this is illegal today but in a libertarian society, would not be.
Again, buying them out is a more acceptable solution than using a government or other forms of force to restrict their otherwise, legitimate (even if immoral) activity, unless of course they were violating the rights of others by initiating aggression or using force to accomplish their disgusting activities.
BM, I am not a libertine. I am a libertarian. I will try to be as careful as I can, in answering your important question. “Which philosophy will draw the human action?”
If you burned a Koran on your front lawn, in front of your Muslim neighbor, would he have the “right” to attack you in order to stop the practice? Or the American flag? If he or you ARE ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY and there is no aggression, what right do you have to interfere? What right does your morality (absent aggression) have to override his? What Right At All? Buy him out, shun him, call him names, build a fence, whatever but using force is a violation of his liberty, just as using violence to enforce drug laws, gambling laws or any other “mala prohibita” rule is a violation of liberty.
Your morality is not enforceable on others in a free society and leads to tyranny, just as we have found out, here in America, the land of the formerly free.
You are desirous of your principles and ethics, with which I probably agree, to be forced upon other people, on their property or in their homes. This is not liberty, this is tyranny.
Liberty and Utopia, are not synonymous.
Peace, Love and Brotherhood
Through Equal Rights, Equal Firepower and Civility.
I would like to add a short bit about one possible method of controlling the actions of others on their own property. I touched on this briefly, when I mentioned CCR's.Delete
You and those who agree with your belief systems, whatever they are, buy up property and attach covenants, conditions or restrictions to that property, BEFORE, you resell it to others. As libertarians believe in "property rights" this would be one legitimate method of controlling the actions of others on their property.
Of course, the modern totalitarian court systems have ruled this as unacceptable, although it was not uncommon in early America, up until the modern socialist era.
It is quite libertarian and honorable.
bm, If you would like to post this link as a hypothetical example of what I have been attempting to describe, please feel free.Delete
If you would care not to, that is fine also and just delete this post.
If you felt my libertarian answer to your thoughtful question was insufficient, I refer you to a greater power, the originator of the Non Aggression Principle, who has spread the message over the centuries to mankind.
“1 Peter 3:11
"HE MUST TURN AWAY FROM EVIL AND DO GOOD; HE MUST SEEK PEACE AND PURSUE IT.
If you wish to examine a brief history of the Non Aggression Principle, which I believe is and has been a direct commandment from the Creator to mankind, please look here.
Again BM, do not hesitate to remove this from your fine blog, which I enjoy.
Peace and Love.
Tahn, see my reply to your several comments here:Delete
If you think what happened (and continues to happen) in South Africa is only incidentally about race then you are ignorant and having nothing of value to say on the subject.
>I would no more judge a rabid dog by the color of their hair, rather than the froth in their mouth.
Very noble and high minded of you! Pittbulls really have gotten a bad reputation. You know that Shih Tzus are equally likely to maul children to death. Sure it never happens....but it could!!
>You talk about a “group mean” and I refuse to judge an entire people by the group.
>However, if there is ONE person of that race who disagrees and who judges others by the content of their character or philosophy, rather than their pigmentation
You "anti-racists" need new talking points. This "color of skin" BS is getting really old. Race is real, its not just skin color.
On a personal basis I will judge people individually, but if I see a pack of negros walking toward me on the street I switch to the other side and thumb my pistol holster.
If you hear about a mall or a swimming pool being taken over by "youths" is there any doubt in your mind what race they are?
Stop playing games. You weren't born yesterday.
I'd cross the street to avoid encountering a gang of any kind of lowlife, but race is not a determining factor for me. I'd cross over to avoid a group of veterans, police, or banksters.Delete
There are less than a dozen blacks living in my county and I regard them as my equals because they are. They are far more suspicious of me than I of them, but they get over that when I don't treat them like pariahs.
Fantastic article. Another gem for this fall's history discussions with my kids. Thanks.ReplyDelete
Boy, war sure does suck.
War sucks unless you are a member of the Carlyle Group or other recipient of dividends from investments in the military-intelligence complex.Delete
In your view, what is hogwqash is Brokaw's statement that the invading allied forces at Normandy were the best example of the "greatest generation". In my view, the naming of the generation that was conscripted to fight a huge war for the bankers as the "greatest generation" is hogwash.ReplyDelete
Of course, anything written by Brokaw qualifies as hogwash, but that's a subject for another discussion.
You have no idea how seriously I take a comment from "Anonymous" who tells me what my view is.Delete
Most of them weren't conscripted. They joined up in droves after the president engineered the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, as good drones.Delete
Yes, I can see how seriously you take a comment from someone who chooses to post as anonymous rather than to register with one of the choices of platforms required for commenting here.Delete
I'm sorry for mistaking what you wrote in your article for what your view is on the subject of the article. From now on, I'll just assume that what you write isn't your view. That will help clear up my misconception.
The only reason why I would consider The Greatest Generation to be different from the ones that followed is that they fought in the last lawfully declared war in which American troops fought. My father was one of these thoroughly indoctrinated types. He spent my childhood trying to get me interested in a military career, to no avail. He thought that the Branch Davidians got what they deserved.ReplyDelete
A little confused by this paragraph: "An interesting aside: when things were going poorly for the Bolsheviks in the battle, Trotsky was furious with Stalin – ordering his return to Moscow. As the tide soon changed, this went no further." Trotsky was killed in 1940. Are you referring to Leon Trotsky? Is it a typo?ReplyDelete
I struggled with how to write it more clearly, given that the paragraph before refers to the Civil War and the paragraph after refers to WWII. After a while, I gave up.Delete
This event between Stalin and Trotsky was during the Civil War.
"Stalingrad represents what defense of a national homeland means to people who value their national homeland. Stalingrad represents the will of the natives to defend as a greater force that the will of the invaders to conquer."ReplyDelete
Why did they need forty blocking squads to convince these patriots to fight? Yes, Normandy pales in comparison to Stalingrad and the sacrifices of the people of the Soviet Union. Stalingrad pales in comparison to the multi-decade sacrifice in the Gulag, similarly enforced by like minded "blocking squads." Maybe we should just label it the bloodiest century and leave it at that. No glory in death for or by the state.
There is no doubt that fear played a role in the fight behind the Russians; the extent that the fear played in the victory is unclear at best. Blocking squads or no, this was a fight between Russian man against the (so far) unstoppable German machine.Delete
As to no glory in death for or by the state, I do not understand your point. Russian people fought off an invader – it is not my place to suggest that they should have welcomed the Nazis with open arms, or maybe tried to convince them of the value of the non-aggression principle.
So what does this have to do with glory for the state? If anyone fought for the glory of the state in this battle, it seems to me it was the Germans.
Further: perhaps you read over this post too quickly. I repeat:
"This invasion did not mark the beginning of the end of Hitler’s Third Reich. If this is the criterion through which one is to judge “the greatest generation any society has ever produced,” one need look to a time about eighteen months earlier and more than three-thousand kilometers to the east."
Note, I wrote “If.”
"Disregard ideology, the evil of government power, all of it."
Note, I wrote “Disregard.”
Russians fought off an invader – something they seem to be able to do quite well.
You may take my post as nothing more than a history lesson. Or you may take it as debunking Brokaw. Or you may take it as representative of the difference in truly defensive war vs. offensive war – not the worst violation of the NAP.
the men at Normandy didn't need blocking squads orReplyDelete
rivers to make them fight.
What would you call conscription?Delete
And for those not conscripted, what can one say? They traveled 4000 miles to fight an enemy that in no way threatened them, their families or their neighbors.Delete
They were placed into a position where self-defense became necessary, for the duration of their time in a war zone of our government's making. As such, they served their government, not their country.Delete
Those of the Greatest Generation who weren't conscripted swallowed the lie of the sneak attack. There was no sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. FDR knew of the attack and let it happen, to suck a reluctant American populace into his stupid war. Aside from his foreknowledge, FDR provoked Pearl Harbor with his embargo of Japan, which was an act of war in and of itself.Delete
Thanks for your thoughtful response. I have nothing for Tom Brokaw, mockingbird stooge, peddling his culture and exceptionalism to the masses, reinforcing acceptable feeling about history. Nice to see him called out.ReplyDelete
The people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics fighting off the people of the National Socialist army and their impressive technology, certainly a greater feat than people of the allied governments army taking Normandy. No argument there.
Rather than a truimph of the natives repelling the invaders, the battle for Stalingrad may alternatively be seen as a human tragedy where one psychopath had more available human resources to sacrifice than another psychopath. The Soviets were left with the number two mass murderer of all time and the Germans were rid of number three then ruled by a coalition of number two and the Dr. Strangeloves in the West. Pretty interesting thought exercise.
Yes, if human sacrifice is the measure of greatness in a generation, then the Soviet people were really good at it. Its very sad to contemplate.
"...the battle for Stalingrad may alternatively be seen as a human tragedy where one psychopath had more available human resources to sacrifice than another psychopath."Delete
You will get no argument from me. Although, I have tremendous sympathy for anyone who lived in between Russia and Germany throughout most of the 20th century. They never had any good choices.
If you have not done so, read Bloodlands, by Timothy Snyder. Alternatively, I have written several posts covering this book:
Their minds were conscripted, body followed.ReplyDelete
Which makes them different from the Russians how?Delete
I hold firm to a couple of views: if the greatest generation is to be determined by who brought an end to Hitler's Germany, those at Stalingrad rank much higher than those at Normandy. Second, defending one's home is inherently a more moral choice than invading the home of another.
Their minds were corrupted. If they were lucky, their bodies didn't follow.Delete
In my opinion, the Soviets were different from Russians like Greeks and French are different from residents of the European Union. They are subjects of the empire but geographically, culturally and ethnically diverse and many but the hard core ideologues would not see them selves as members of the imposed collective culture.Delete
Great work on Bloodlands and Advance to Barbarism. Human nature doesn't change much. I appreciate your trying to bring everyone along.
The simple fact and truth about the NAP is that the vast majority of Americans have never heard of it, and as a result of a life time of indoctrination by their public school educations and incessant viewing of multiple screens wouldn't be able to understand its simple concepts well enough to implement it in their own lives.ReplyDelete
Vonu, what of the people that aren't capable of understanding the NAP due to low IQ or cannot follow it due to poor impulse control?Delete
There are tens of millions of people like that in America right now, and the US government immigration policy makes certain that this number is increasing every day.
Since there are 300,000,000 people of average intelligence who can't understand NAP due to long term indoctrination, tens of millions of low IQ or constitutionally impaired wouldn't be of any more deterrence than they are to the continuing failure of the average American to be able to understand the unconstitutionality of virtually everything that Congress does. The tests that immigrants are required to pass to obtain citizenship demonstrate that those who pass it know more about American history and government than most who were born here.Delete
IMO it would do more to rectify these problems to institute a similar test to be allowed to vote. If nothing else, those who are grossly ignorant would know why they aren't allowed to vote.