[Rei Murasame]

viewtopic.php?f=63&t=141020

Counter-question to this thread: Is the continued domination of the world by international finance which was unfortunately accomplished by those Allies who "did everything and anything to win" in the Greater East Asia War, more 'justifiable' or less 'justifiable' than Axis who stamped around assertively and "did everything and anything to win" while attempting to stave off the aforementioned domination?

Weren't both sides just inevitably going to pull out all the stops anyway? It's all terrible and disgusting, but war is always terrible and disgusting. The more desperate it becomes, the worse it gets.

Split in the spirit of the new emphasis on being on topic - SD

[onemalehuman]

Counter-question to this thread: Is the continued domination of the world by international finance which was unfortunately accomplished by those Allies who "did everything and anything to win" in the Greater East Asia War, more 'justifiable' or less 'justifiable' than Axis who stamped around assertively and "did everything and anything to win" while attempting to stave off the aforementioned domination?

Weren't both sides just inevitably going to pull out all the stops anyway? It's all terrible and disgusting, but war is always terrible and disgusting. The more desperate it becomes, the worse it gets.

Not both sides, all sides of societal evolution saving humanity from being just sole ancestors of ancestry each generation passing through this ever changing details moment.

It is what creates this planet to be considered two worlds philosophically having 3 dimensions of a 4 cornered globe, then again let us not forget the scientific evidence to alternate realities and parallel universes co-existing in separate dimensions of thought.

[Smilin' Dave]

I think your question as posed is a bit off (which is probably given away by my phrasing of the new title). Comparing the notional Axis justification for war* with the result of Allied victory is comparing apples and oranges. Soviet and American troops were not marching under a metaphorical banner that said 'international bankers'

*from memory you construct a narrative where the war was between a more domestic/regionally-focused economy for the Axis vs. the threat of international economic forces

Weren't both sides just inevitably going to pull out all the stops anyway?

Not really. Chemical weapons largely stayed off the table in the conflict between the great powers for example. Admittedly that was more the result of the threat of the other side following suit, but it does highlight that even in a total war of notable brutality, some lines were not to be crossed.

[Preston Cole]

The Axis was completely justified in, as you said, stamping around and invading. The Axis was the first and last great bastion of anti-liberalism and anti-communism to have existed on this continent. One that enthroned peoples' nationalism and aimed to protect Europe from the perverted liberal-financial influence that states like America and Israel are now exerting upon our continent. It aimed to make Europe overlord in the Western Hemisphere, as its rightful place dictates.

That it lost is an act of evil that must be avenged.

[Goldberk]

Counter-question to this thread: Is the continued domination of the world by international finance which was unfortunately accomplished by those Allies who "did everything and anything to win" in the Greater East Asia War, more 'justifiable' or less 'justifiable' than Axis who stamped around assertively and "did everything and anything to win" while attempting to stave off the aforementioned domination?

I'm not sure who well it could be argued that an axis victory would have seen off the domination of international capital/finance, more than likely we would still have had it just with an axis bias and a different political backdrop, fascism is not anti capital.

he perverted liberal-financial influence that states like America and Israel are now exerting upon our continent.

Umm Israel as a hegemonic power, pull the other one, This is just unreconstructed fascist antisemitism.

[Rich]

The Axis was completely justified in, as you said, stamping around and invading. The Axis was the first and last great bastion of anti-liberalism and anti-communism to have existed on this continent.

You are joking? It was the Axis that allowed the Commies into Eastern Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia parts of Finland and Moldavia. They even collaborated with the NKVD on the annihilation of the Polish elite. How that was meant to help in the fight against Communism God only knows. When Hitler did finally get round to invading the SU he did it totally incompetently and manged to get majority of the peoples of Eastern Europe to rally round Stalin's regime, some achievement. The end result of Germany's work was that Eastern and much of central Europe ended up under Communist control. In his dying days Hitler had nothing but praise for Stalin. Japan let the Communists be, and attacked Nationalist China and the western powers, resulting in the Commmies taking over first Manchuria and then China and South East Asia.

One things for sure, we Liberals can only have a real fight against Communist totalitarians when we've eradicated the fascists.

[Rei Murasame]

I think your question as posed is a bit off (which is probably given away by my phrasing of the new title). Comparing the notional Axis justification for war* with the result of Allied victory is comparing apples and oranges. Soviet and American troops were not marching under a metaphorical banner that said 'international bankers'

Yes, I'll give you that, the Allied soldiers were not on the same page when it comes to that narrative, so I'll acknowledge it is apples and oranges.

I sometimes wonder if they were aware of what the Axis side thought of them, though.

Chemical weapons largely stayed off the table in the conflict between the great powers for example. Admittedly that was more the result of the threat of the other side following suit, but it does highlight that even in a total war of notable brutality, some lines were not to be crossed.

Fair enough, but then it seems that both sides would have to openly announce "I could do it, but I won't if you won't". So the weapons would have to be developed anyway, even as just a deterrent.

I think they tend to end up getting used when one side either knows or thinks that the other side doesn't have the same capability.

____________

The Axis was the first and last great bastion of anti-liberalism and anti-communism to have existed on this continent. One that enthroned peoples' nationalism and aimed to protect Europe from the perverted liberal-financial influence that states like America and Israel are now exerting upon our continent.

Umm Israel as a hegemonic power, pull the other one, This is just unreconstructed fascist antisemitism.

I assume he's referring to the state of Israel as it presently exists in the middle east, though. "America's 51st state" and all that. Is he really wrong to phrase it like that?

____________

I'm not sure who well it could be argued that an axis victory would have seen off the domination of international capital/finance, more than likely we would still have had it just with an axis bias and a different political backdrop, fascism is not anti capital.

There is that risk, yes, although I don't think it's as likely as you think it is, I think it's true that it's not 100% guaranteed that everything would've worked out nicely, there were plenty of ways that they could fail - which would require the guilds to retry:

[...] we also are open to the possibility that fascist guilds might need to actually turn and shut down the very same fascist government they helped inaugurate by using that power, and we are also open to the possibility that a fascist government may need to mediate to prevent a breakdown caused by inter-guild squabbling. [...]

[Goldberk]

I assume he's referring to the state of Israel as it presently exists in the middle east, though. "America's 51st state" and all that. Is he really wrong to phrase it like that?

I think you are being a little generous with your assumption but if we accept it why not say the US and UK? or the US and Japan? or any other combination other than Israel? especially in a thread to do with WW2.

[Preston Cole]

I think you are being a little generous with your assumption but if we accept it why not say the US and UK? or the US and Japan? or any other combination other than Israel? especially in a thread to do with WW2.

Because Israel is pulling Europe into a war with Middle Eastern powers and constantly harasses nationalist organizations abroad with the Holocaust card.

Not that I give a shit about said harassment, but I just hate to see malevolent foreign powers meddling in the politics of my country.

[Rei Murasame]

I think you are being a little generous with your assumption but if we accept it why not say the US and UK? or the US and Japan? or any other combination other than Israel? especially in a thread to do with WW2.

Well, there are reasons for that, I would imagine:

• The relationship between USA and Israel which is incredibly beneficial to them in ways that sometimes are almost staggering, they are able to get what they want without ever really giving anything in return.
  
  
• The recent scandal in Europe where Israeli banks were running some kind of secretive bank accounts for people or something like that.
  
  
• The stance of many Jewish advocacy groups in Europe on the subject of migration, how they basically champion it and promote it.

It basically becomes impossible not to mention them, but I do get how it can be cringe-inducing in a World War Two thread.

Israel is pulling Europe into a war with Middle Eastern powers

Also this, I almost forgot this one.

and constantly harasses nationalist organizations abroad with the Holocaust card.

And this too, someone actually played that card at me yesterday, when it had absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about at all. It's almost like it can just be placed on the table at any time.

[Daktoria]

I think your question as posed is a bit off (which is probably given away by my phrasing of the new title). Comparing the notional Axis justification for war* with the result of Allied victory is comparing apples and oranges. Soviet and American troops were not marching under a metaphorical banner that said 'international bankers'

*from memory you construct a narrative where the war was between a more domestic/regionally-focused economy for the Axis vs. the threat of international economic forces

Spot on.

Keynesian Roosevelt and Churchill commended Mussolini's corporatism as the economics of the future. If someone thinks WW2 was about international finance, then someone doesn't know the political interests at stake.

From the American perspective, WW2 can be looked upon as a continuation of Roosevelt's war on Tammany Hall. He wanted to "reform" ethnic, Catholic political machines in exchange for public health care, education, and social work programs just to streamline production.

By throwing Catholics into the war machine grinder, he had less opposition to deal with.

[U184]

Is the continued domination of the world by international finance which was unfortunately accomplished by those Allies who "did everything and anything to win" in the Greater East Asia War, more 'justifiable' or less 'justifiable' than Axis who stamped around assertively and "did everything and anything to win" while attempting to stave off the aforementioned domination?

Let me rearrange the above statement in a way that lets you see how it looks to me... because as far as I am concerned, you just flipped the whole scenario.

Was it more 'justifiable' or less 'justifiable' that the Allies "did everything and anything to win" the war and that those actions led to the domination of the world by international finance and can the Axis be held at fault for attempting to stave off the aforementioned domination?

To me it seems that you have painted the Allies as the aggressors and that the Axis were just protecting their assets, by keeping the Allies from dominating the world, by way of controlling international finance.

Was this your intention?

I see the Axis as having started a war, got their ass's kicked and that set back their economic and overall growth for several generations.

Is their failure the fault of the Allies?

Yes.

Can the Allies be held culpable, for the set backs that the Axis experienced, after they failed to win the war they themselves started?

Absolutely not.

The resulting dominance of the Allies, including that of international finance, was a direct result of winning the war, a war started by the Axis.

Attempting to change the scenario so that the Axis were just attempting to stave off the Allies is a really fucked up stance.

I hope I took this whole thing out of context, or I will be rather disappointed Rei.

I sometimes wonder if they were aware of what the Axis side thought of them, though.

I think they did think about it and I think what they thought was simple.

Allies, "wow these Axis think that everyone is weak and stupid enough to allow them take over the whole damn world, boy do they have another thing coming".


As for the Dai To A Senso, aka, the Greater East Asia War, this portion of the theater included the Komandorski Islands, the Coral Sea and the air raids on Colombo and Pearl Harbor.

The sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, started what the Japanese call the Dai To A Senso, all the other battles were a direct result of Japanese attacks and the Allies defending.


Am I reading you wrong Rei, or are you despondent over the loses incurred by the Japanese and holding a grudge over it?

[Smilin' Dave]

I sometimes wonder if they were aware of what the Axis side thought of them, though.

I'm not sure you and I would agree as to what the Axis soldier actually thought about their enemies. I don't think the Axis soldiery saw their enemies as proxies for bankers either, and probably not even necessarily ideological foes either.

Fair enough, but then it seems that both sides would have to openly announce "I could do it, but I won't if you won't". So the weapons would have to be developed anyway, even as just a deterrent.

I think they tend to end up getting used when one side either knows or thinks that the other side doesn't have the same capability.

Yes and no. MAD existed largely without formal declaration for example. The weapons certainly were developed and even intended to be deployed (US heavy mortars were called Chemical Mortars for a reason after all), but they weren't.

And chemical weapons were used a bit in the interwar period... but against opponents without real armies or chemical 'deterrent'.

[Daktoria]

Progressives complain all the time about big business Axis support anyway. Standard Oil collaborating with IG Farben for example.

Usually, neoliberals have to argue AGAINST big business supporting Axis interests. OP is a really bizarre stance.