Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
If you're going to just use an emoji, then you might explain why you think my statement is wrong.
Your statement is so wrong that it does not need any explanation. But sure, I can say why it is wrong. It is wrong because it is an insult to the millions of people that lost there lives defending their countries against British colonialism and imperialism while you are throwing to them the bone of "semblance of democracy". If I were you, I would apologise.
In 'freedom and democracy', 'freedom' usually refers to civic liberties, like the right to expressing opinions the government doesn't like. You're now switching that to 'sovereign freedom' for Poland, which has nothing to do with political and civic systems; it's a geopolitical concept.
So yes, the UK objected to Germany conquering Poland and ending its existence as an indepdendent entity, but that has nothing to do with opposition to fascism or support of democracy. And even there, I would argue that the UK's support of Poland here wouldn't have been out of sympathy with Poland or because the UK considered territorial integrity sacrosanct, but because of their concern for the European geopolitical balance, which they felt the German invasion of Poland damanged too much. (The last bit being important, since obviously they didn't object as strongly to the German annexation of Sudetenland or Austria.)
Of course Hitler crushed freedoms in conquered territories, cause those territories were brought under his totalitarian rule. He wasn't going to rule different parts of his empire in different ways. That wouldn't have been the goal of the invasion though, rather an inevitable byproduct. Or can you point me to a single source (that's not just propaganda but reflects actual arguments) where a high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms? Cause if what I'm saying is so absurd, support for your claims should be available somewhere outside these really strong personal assertions in your posts.
Finally, I don't think there is only self-interest in international relations; there is also altruism and moral righteousness. But I think that, on balance, self-interest plays a bigger role (a far bigger role) in actions taken. I think it makes no sense to put it black and white (only this or only that); but if that's the approach that you insist on, I would bounce your words back to you and say it's painfully naive to see you claim that the single most important motivation would be something other than self-interest.
Yes.
Of course truth is the first victim in wars. Just don't assume its only a victim on one side.
So let's not ask questions and hook that Russian propaganda straight into our veins, right?
You don't even want to read it, anything that goes against what you've been fed is automatically propaganda.
Don't respond to me regarding this topic, I don't want to waste my time and yours also.
Lets assume whatever you post is western propaganda and whatever is posted contrary to that is russian propaganda.
The British empire legacy of parliamentary democracy in India is a matter of historical fact.
It's also a fact that in recent times, under an increasingly authoritarian leader (Modi), the workings of democracy in India have been weakened considerably.
I don't need to apologise for stating facts, even if the increasingly hysterical Hindu Nationalist supporters of Modi don't like it.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/28/modi-india-democracy-hindu-nationalism-ethnic-jaffrelot-review/
Sorry you're a bit underequipped with facts here, you're characteristic enthusiasm doesn't really save face when it comes to history.
Britain did not enter the war to fight fascism not even 1%, fighting a fascist yes that isn't the same and if you can't understand why i can't help you. You mention Mussolini but if you knew anything of that period you'd know Britain supported him not too long before WW2.
I'm aware that Ukrainian propaganda is a real thing and I'm sceptical of every report I read from the country. But that doesn't mean I have to entertain claims that might as well come straight out of the Kremlin for fake balance. I haven't made up the propaganda claim, I took it from Wikipedia and that tweet by the author of your article tells me all I need to know about his biases.
I have also skimmed through the article. It's a long list of bullet points, a lot of them sourced by Russian/Ukrainian sites that could show cooking recipes for all I know, or not at all. I guess I'll have to take the Russian "If we want to stop this war we need to protest the US government" propagandist by his word and hope he's an honest chap this time..
Last edited:
That fact is irrelevant in the conflict, millions lost their lives, no small benefits from British colonialism will cover the mass losses India suffered on the hands of imperialistic Britain.
Sovereign freedom for a country has everything do with political and civic systems. How else can a nation choose its own path destiny unless it has its own intact political and civic systems? Hitler destroyed everything that was Polish.
So now you're reduced to arguing that Britain opposition to fascism and its favouring of freedom and democracy was entirely divorced from its opposition to Hitler - what nonsense.
You also claim that no "high-ranking German of the time said that they were going to invade a country specifically because of its democratic system or civic freedoms". May I remind you that the right to exist is a "civic freedom": one of Germany's explicit and key aims was to exterminate Jewish people - to "cleanse" Europe of Jews.
You're right. Britain needs to invade India again to revive democracy.
No one said that, though. What's being said is that the West doesn't help democracies for democracy's sake. They help or attack countries based on their own self interest, and sometimes that leads to defending democracies. Sometimes it leads to funding genocide.
The foreign policy of the West is not altruistic, it's based on self interest. It's absurd that this is a controversial claim.
Denazification of India. Who says no.
A sovereign nation has been invaded, it's civilians are being massacred. There is only one victim in this situation.
Now you're switching onto entirely different ground, without the grace of admitting that what I said was correct.
But OK, you regard the establishment of a democratic system of government as a "small benefit". Many, including me, would disagree with that assessment. And nor was it the only benefit - e.g. banning the practice of Sati, a tradition where a woman was expected to throw herself into the fire of her husband's funeral.
However, as I've already said, there were also many very bad aspects of British rule in India
Worth restating again and again that under British rule, 35 million people starved to death, and Britain extorted USD$45 trillion from India during that period.
Even if we credit Britain with introducing parliamentary democracy, that's not exactly an equal transaction....
Also worth stating that the British Empire was fantastic for the UK.
Glatsonspur to lead the cavalry!
It isn't an understatement at all. I'm not talking about the significance of the actors which have decided to enact sanctions but the number of countries which have done so and the geographical spread. Not a single Central American, South American or African country have joined the sanctions. Only 3 'actual' countries in Asia have joined them and 2 in Australasia. Not exactly in keeping with this supposed global showdown between democracy and dictatorships is it?
Turkey are also not part of the sanctions by the way.
I don't think I suggested that China would face no sanctions if they invaded Taiwan. Just chuckling at the suggestion that Spanish and Italian aircraft carriers are going to go around the world to fight in the South China Sea against China.
I don't think this thread is particularly tone deaf to be honest.
The problem is slightly that one poster in particular allows posters to caricature all arguments into a ridiculous corner. I totally agree and have said strongly before that for all my criticisms of the West and the foreign policy of many of its countries, I would 100% prefer to still live in a US dominated world than one dominated by China or Russia.
For me, saying India has democracy because of the UK is as ridiculous as saying that propaganda is better in the West than in Russia.
I think the point about democracies and the response to war is an interesting one and for me, has shown the disconnect that some people have. Earlier in this thread, when we talked about the consequences for Russia as a country in this illegal war vs the (non existent) consequences for the UK and USA in their (multiple) illegal actions, someone replied talking about the PTSD suffered by western soldiers in Iraq. I had to pull out my tiny violin.
And of course, we had protests in the West, against Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam. Then what happened? We went to war anyway. People got bored and went on with their lives and the war continued. Not only did the two main leaders suffer no international consequences (they both roam free, are both multi millionaires, have both had a rehabilitation of their image of sorts in the recent past) but didn't even suffer any domestic consequences, with both leaders handily winning their next election.
The moral equivalence argument to me is often nonsensical on both sides. As I said, I'd much prefer to live in a world dominated by the USA compared to one dominated by Russia. But ultimately a bomb which wipes out your family is still a bomb that wipes out your family whether it's an American bomb or a Russian bomb. Iraqi children don't sit there thinking....Well my parents may be dead. But at least those bombs are democracy bombs.
Which is something that some on here would do well to remember while they're patting themselves on the back about how the west goes to war for democracy.
The fairy-tale is about this team America-esque worldview where you think the West goes around the world fighting its wars for freedom and democracy only, as opposed to each countries' self-interest like others. You can also extend this to your comments about Indian democracy and British motivations for fighting in WW2.
That is literally on their doorstep. As opposed to the almost 12,000 miles by sea a British carrier (along with its entourage) would need to travel to get to Taiwan. Well within Chinese missiles and airforce range.
Why are we not antagonising China? I thought the world is stuck in a battle between democrats and autocrats and we conduct out foreign policy with this in mind? Why have we been lining the pockets of a country who's stated aim is and always has been reunification with Taiwan?
thats an excellent post. The bold part is important, because we (as in the western public) really really don't want to think about this and pretend that this part doesn't exist.
I'm starting to think you're just trolling me here. If not: are you really suggesting that civic freedoms and democracy are necessary for a country's Independence? Cause I still fail to see how responding to a country's sovereignty equates to protecting democracy and civic freedoms.
Or to put it another way: do you think the UK would not have declared wat on Germany if Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state?
I have no idea how you got there, but surely you aren't arguing here that the UK was opposed to Hitler personally? Or if that's not your point, then I have no idea what you're saying here.
Germany did not invade Poland to exterminate the Jews, did it? And even if so, they could have theoretically done that and let all others retain all their civic freedoms and democracy. (That they didn't is besides the point with this argument you're providing.) It's not the evidence I was asking for.
You are ascribing views to me that I haven't expressed. I haven't said that the West only fights for freedom and democracy. I've said that it sometimes fights for freedom and democracy - which is a hell of a lot more than can be said for most other nations. But of course it also sometimes fights for reasons more centred on self-interest.
Everything I've said about India and democracy is entirely true. If you think otherwise, then best tell what you claim is not true. The same goes for Britain's motivations during WWII.
Ukraine is literally on Russia's doorstep - since they share a common land border. 100 miles of open sea is something quite different, especially if a country is attempting to send an invasion force across it. Sink even one boat - and several thousand troops may go down with it before they even reach the fight - and Taiwan is stuffed to the gills with sophisticated weapons, including anti-ship missiles.
I've already explained why at this point there's no point antagonising China by formally recognising Taiwan. And yes, the world does face an existential struggle between democracy and freedom vs tyranny and oppression. But that doesn't mean we have to gung-ho declare war on China. Such conflict will arise if and when China attempts to take Taiwan by force. And by the way, the benefits of trade works both ways - it's not just to China's benefit.
12,000 miles to China by sea doesn't mean that much when you consider that (a) some of the carrier groups concerned - of which there at least 17 across pro-Western nations (not counting helo carriers) - will be much closer at any one time; and (b) we would know about any Chinese preparations for invasion weeks in advance.
And if such ships were to become well within Chinese missile and airforce range, then the same thing applies in reverse to any Chinese invasion fleet, missile bases and military airports. Many of the Chinese ships would be sunk before they even got halfway to the Taiwanese coast.
Last edited:
If Poland had been a repressive, totalitarian state then Britain would not, in the first place, have signed a mutual aid military agreement with them. Which means that with no treaty obligation to intervene and no moral imperative to come to the aid of a fascist state, then no, Britain would not have declared war on Germany at that point, preferring instead to let two fascist states fight each other.
Germany did invade Poland partly to exterminate Jews, and partly also to gain territory for its own sake (expanding space for German people to populate). The two aims went hand in hand, with the latter being necessary if they were to proceed with the former. I repeat: a key aim of the Nazis was the Europe-wide extermination of Jews.
Let's leave it here. I think we've both amply had our say by now.
With regards to the propaganda war, I actually sympathised with Russia and thought the US was blowing things out of proportion... until they actually invaded.
I couldn't believe it.
Since then there's definitely propaganda on both sides, but Russia's propaganda is so insanely absurd that it's impossible to believe it if you have half a brain.
Russia's propaganda is specifically designed for their people, and not for an audience outside of Russia.
I couldn't believe it.
Since then there's definitely propaganda on both sides, but Russia's propaganda is so insanely absurd that it's impossible to believe it if you have half a brain.
Russia's propaganda is specifically designed for their people, and not for an audience outside of Russia.
Can't argue with any of that.
That is not correct, is it? Russia use different propaganda for different audiences. Their own people get the hardcore delusional stuff, for western audiences they water down the rhetoric and sprinkle it with whataboutism, they tap into the (far) left's disdain for the US and Nato to get them to spread their talking points on their own, with convicton, (this thread offers quite a lot of examples) and they also have scripts for the far right, who maybe go more into the direction of "my country first".
Last edited:
I was referring to their war propaganda, which is complete nonsense, rather then general political propaganda.
I don't think the rise of nationalism can be wholly attributed to Russian influence. I think as globalisation has increased in the last few decades, there is a natural fear in people about losing their national identities.
I have asked many European people over the last couple of decades (way before brexit) what they thought of the idea of a United States of Europe, to push the EU project one step further. Very few are warm to the idea, so that suggests to me that there is an upper limit to collectiveness that people are willing to adopt.
Last edited:
Its not, the foreign policy of all countries is based on self interest, there maybe some altruistic elements in the policy of some countries, but self interest is primary everywhere.
Atleast the british gave the irish democracy and railways whilst killing millions.
Yes but they gave them "semblance of democracy". Is that not worth it?
