US: Violent clashes Charlottesville

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Maybe that was because Lincoln wanted there to be peace between the two sides and any such persecution might have fuelled even more resentment...Perhaps that was something that the allies should have considered after 1918 in Europe when they decided to really scapegoat Germany. We might have avoided WW2 if they had.

Not a very good analogy Maggy. There was no side that surrendered in 1918, all that was signed was an armistice.

An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, since it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace.

Re: Treaty of Versailles

After six months of negotiations, the Allied powers decided that Germany must be stripped of all of its war-making capabilities so that the country could never commence another aggressive war again. This was done by stripping Germany of her colonial possessions and some European territory, severely restricting her military's quality and quantity, and forcing her to pay large sums in reparations. While the territorial losses and the military restrictions had already driven the proud German people to shame, the reparations clause drove them to near rage. Initial clause placed the weight of repaying 269 billion gold marks to the Allied powers; an amendment passed in Jan 1921 reduced the amount of 132 billion. Even at the reduced amount, it was an impossibly astronomical figure that would require Germany to continue paying until 1987 before the entire amount was paid off. The efforts to pay the war debts created a hyperinflation in Germany, and eventually it led to a complete economic meltdown. "The terms [of the treaty] were exorbitant, vindictive, and preposterous", said William Manchester. John Maynard Keynes did not see merit in it either, calling the peace that it promised nothing but "a Carthaginian Peace". Fellow British Winston Churchill summed up the treaty as "monstrous" and "malignant". Paul von Hindenburg, German Chief of Staff during WW1, was asked about the treaty; he responded by saying that sometimes he could not "help feeling that it were better to perish than sign such a humiliating peace."

It was in this mixture of damaged national pride and severe hardship endured by the German people that gave Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party the opportunity gain popularity. Germany, ravaged by the war, the harsh treaty, and the Great Depression, wanted to see a bright future for Germany; Hitler offered such a hope, and the German people bought into his twisted vision for a glorious German Reich.

Originally Posted by pip08456

Not a very good analogy Maggy. There was no side that surrendered in 1918, all that was signed was an armistice.



Re: Treaty of Versailles

It's a perfectly good analogy.

You are being ridiculously pedantic, and also wrong. Caiming that the use of the term "armistice" means Germany didn't actually surrender is nonsense.

The German war machine was spent. The German high command may have hoped to come to an amicable truce with the Allies but what they got was extremely harsh. Woodrow Wilson even demanded the abdication of the Kaiser as a precondition, and stipulated that there would not be ceasefire or peace talks, but surrender.

Armistice demanded extensive demilitarisation, de-occupation of French and Belgian territories held for almost 50 years and a whole host of other things, with the Allies promising next to nothing in return. All of that was achieved with the surrender of Germany in 1918. The treaty of Versailles the following year was more focused on what the future shape of Europe would be.

While it is true that war memorials created in the immediate aftermath of the conflict date its end to 1919, there is no doubt that 11 November 1918 was the day the Allies won and Germany surrendered.

[downquark1]

Rule one of extremists, don't give them political ground to stand on. A poll yesterday shows only 4% of Americans like the white nationalists but 62% like the statues where they are.

DON'T GIVE THEM THE STATUE ISSUE.

source

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Rule one of extremists, don't give them political ground to stand on. A poll yesterday shows only 4% of Americans like the white nationalists but 62% like the statues where they are.

DON'T GIVE THEM THE STATUE ISSUE.

source

Agreed. Giving the extremists equivalence with the protestors gives them ground to stand on. Theresa May is right to call Trump out on this.
The statue issue is a different debate and not owned by the White supremacists.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Rule one of extremists, don't give them political ground to stand on. A poll yesterday shows only 4% of Americans like the white nationalists but 62% like the statues where they are.

DON'T GIVE THEM THE STATUE ISSUE.

source

I don't like that logic though because it would mean there are issues we can't debate in case they get co-opted by extremists. People can have different opinions of the statues but all be united against Nazis. What happens when the Nazis choose something else to be their rallying cause?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

I don't like that logic though because it would mean there are issues we can't debate in case they get co-opted by extremists. People can have different opinions of the statues but all be united against Nazis. What happens when the Nazis choose something else to be their rallying cause?

You can disagree with the statue issue, but don't associated it with the Nazi's. Do not mention it in the same breathe, leave it for now and discuss it later.

Also make it should like a reasonable disagreement with moderate conservatives.

Originally Posted by downquark1

You can disagree with the statue issue, but don't associated it with the Nazi's. Do not mention it in the same breathe, leave it for now and discuss it later.

Also make it should like a reasonable disagreement with moderate conservatives.

Well exactly. But if we're going to make sure that it's exists outside of the nazis then an argument against the removal of the statues should not be that it gives a platform to them.

I don't even think they had this meeting because of the statues did they?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Well exactly. But if we're going to make sure that it's exists outside of the nazis then an argument against the removal of the statues should not be that it gives a platform to them.

I don't even think they had this meeting because of the statues did they?

Yes they did. The plan was to "Unite the right" behind the statue issue. But moderate right wingers refused to join.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Yes they did. The plan was to "Unite the right" behind the statue issue. But moderate right wingers refused to join.

Ah ok.

Well still I don't think we should give them validation of ignoring the issue because they've got involved. I mean they're Nazis.

As much as i love all Nazi's to die off tomorrow it isn't going to happen and we need to shine a very bright light on them and confront them in debate as that's where they fail completely and show themselves in their true light of hatred, ignorance and bigotry. This whole statue debacle has allowed them to garner support they otherwise would never have gotten even though it might be small that's how it always starts we need to starve them of any hint of legitimisation by being smarter not more righteous on silly issue's that only a minority have any interest in.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Damien

Ah ok.

Well still I don't think we should give them validation of ignoring the issue because they've got involved. I mean they're Nazis.

The point is not to ignore the issue, the point is not to suggest that people who don't want the statues removed should start working with them. The moderates must take a firm hold of the issue.

They want to make people feel so isolated and ignored that they will join in their marches.

It's not just Statues that are now being talked about. I saw somewhere, it was suggested yesterday, perhaps in jest to blow up Mount Rushmore, because it contains faces of former Presidents and slave owners.

Today, I have seen talk about boycotting the use of $1.00, $20.00, $50.00, & $100.00 bills, as they have images of slave owners on them.

$1 Washington - slave owner
$2 Jefferson - slave owner
$5 Lincoln - did not necessarily agree with slavery, but didn't agree that blacks were equal
$10 Hamilton - slave owner
$20 Jackson - slave owner
$50 Grant - slave owner
$100 Franklin - affiliation with slave trade.

Then I saw someone else sarcastically write underneath the above:

I'm here to help, I really am. What I need everyone that agrees with the destruction of historical property to do is send me all your currency so I can dispose of it for you. No need to carry these evil people in your pocket that cause your life so much trauma and tears. Don't be a hypocrite, send me the money. It's evil!!!!
-Thank you and your [sic] welcome!!!!

Originally Posted by Mick

It's not just Statues that are now being talked about. I saw somewhere, it was suggested yesterday, perhaps in jest to blow up Mount Rushmore, because it contains faces of former Presidents and slave owners.

But that again completely misrepresents what the debate is again. No one is saying dismantle them because they were slave owners but rather because they fought a war to maintain the right to own slaves.

This is Donald Trump again with this comparison of George Washington to Robert Lee which is nonsense.

$5 Lincoln - did not necessarily agree with slavery, but didn't agree that blacks were equal

That's one way of putting it.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Chris

It's a perfectly good analogy.

You are being ridiculously pedantic, and also wrong. Caiming that the use of the term "armistice" means Germany didn't actually surrender is nonsense.

The German war machine was spent. The German high command may have hoped to come to an amicable truce with the Allies but what they got was extremely harsh. Woodrow Wilson even demanded the abdication of the Kaiser as a precondition, and stipulated that there would not be ceasefire or peace talks, but surrender.

Armistice demanded extensive demilitarisation, de-occupation of French and Belgian territories held for almost 50 years and a whole host of other things, with the Allies promising next to nothing in return. All of that was achieved with the surrender of Germany in 1918. The treaty of Versailles the following year was more focused on what the future shape of Europe would be.

While it is true that war memorials created in the immediate aftermath of the conflict date its end to 1919, there is no doubt that 11 November 1918 was the day the Allies won and Germany surrendered.

Just to add Ferdinand Foch was spot on when he said of the treaty of Versailles that this isn't a peace treaty it's a twenty year armistice, if only someone had listened

Originally Posted by Damien

But that again completely misrepresents what the debate is again. No one is saying dismantle them because they were slave owners but rather because they fought a war to maintain the right to own slaves.

This is Donald Trump again with this comparison of George Washington to Robert Lee which is nonsense.




That's one way of putting it.

And you're misrepresenting history, Virginia amongst others voted for session because they didn't want to fight other Southern States or isn't that relevant

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

And you're misrepresenting history, Virginia amongst others voted for session because they didn't want to fight other Southern States or isn't that relevant

What does that have to do with what I said? He still took up arms for the side picking a fight over, primarily, slavery. You keep trying to make out as if Slavery was almost a minor aspect of the civil war rather than one of the central causes. I've said a number of times that there were other factors but every history I've read of it has slavery at its heart.

I don't even care that much about a statue because I've never see it or have to live near it but I am frustrated by people's unwillingness to understand why honouring confederate leaders and symbols upsets people.