When do people change their minds.

[AngryAnt]

Here’s a curve ball for you, there were no good guys.

The Axis powers - Germany and Japan in particular - had to be stopped. We likely would have had Germany controlling and occupying Western Europe - including the UK and the Soviets controlling Eastern Europe and Eurasia, with ongoing war between them and the associated genocides and exploitation. Japan would have controlled the Asia and the Pacific including Australia with the associated genocide and exploitation.

Sure, the Soviets and the Western powers carved up Europe afterwards but clearly that future was much much better than what we could have got.

 

[Baloo]

Apple is on the right track by allowing people to increase their browsing privacy in its latest operating systems. It should make for a more balanced / less skewed online experience.

Apple don't make the the large bulk of their revenue from online advertising

I believe Google is heading down this path, too.

Google do.

Google "solution" was on one level ok, where the data has handled a bit better, but on another level it made people not using Google's advertising platform unable to comply. Really another stake in the heart of the "Do No Evil" company ethos they started with.

Don't know what the answer is, other than setting up your own DNS servers and a validating, recursive, caching DNS resolver, and then use VPNs where ever possible, or even TOR. Way to much work for the average Facebook / Instagram / TikTok jumkie.

 

[Number8]

Apple don't make the the large bulk of their revenue from online advertising

Correct. Hence, it's no skin off their nose to help people avoid being tracked if that's what they would prefer.

Google do.

I read recently that Google had put back its removal /opt out of cookies for advertising purposes until 2023. I'll see if I can find a link.

EDIT: here's a link ...

Google Delays Cookie Removal to Late 2023

The Alphabet unit said its Chrome internet browser will stop supporting a user-tracking technology called third-party cookies by late 2023, nearly two years later than its initial time frame of early 2022.

www.wsj.com

Way to much work for the average Facebook / Instagram / TikTok jumkie

100%. That's why I reckon it needs to be eradicated at the operating system and / or browser level. People shouldn't have to find complex workarounds to retain a basic level of privacy. It's downright creepy.

 

[tigermike]

Here’s a curve ball for you, there were no good guys.

If you really think Hitler and his cronies were justified in what they did, including sending thousands of German youth to their deaths for no good reason, then that's really sad.

 

[Giardiasis]

The Axis powers - Germany and Japan in particular - had to be stopped. We likely would have had Germany controlling and occupying Western Europe - including the UK and the Soviets controlling Eastern Europe and Eurasia, with ongoing war between them and the associated genocides and exploitation. Japan would have controlled the Asia and the Pacific including Australia with the associated genocide and exploitation.

Sure, the Soviets and the Western powers carved up Europe afterwards but clearly that future was much much better than what we could have got.

Yeah that’s what I used to think too. It’s what the standard history books would suggest written by the victors.

 

[Giardiasis]

If you really think Hitler and his cronies were justified in what they did, including sending thousands of German youth to their deaths for no good reason, then that's really sad.

Please point out where I suggested this. “There were no good guys”.

 

[scottyturnerscurse]

great thread RE.

Ive changed quite a few viewpoints over the years.



7. I was a vegetarian for 14 years on ethical ground, now im a beef farmer

Superb.

 

[tigermike]

Please point out where I suggested this. “There were no good guys”.

Don't try to re-write history. Hitler was the aggressor and the allies were defending their land, their freedom and their lives.

 

[Giardiasis]

Don't try to re-write history. Hitler was the aggressor and the allies were defending their land, their freedom and their lives.

Thanks Mr. standard history text book.

 

[AngryAnt]

Yeah that’s what I used to think too. It’s what the standard history books would suggest written by the victors.

Point me to your alternative histories then. I try to keep an open mind.

 

[Giardiasis]

Point me to your alternative histories then. I try to keep an open mind.

For a general overview of America’s wars: https://cdn.mises.org/The Costs of War Americas Pyrrhic Victories_2.pdf

For an Englishman’s take on the causes of WW2 critical of his countrymen: https://www.military-history.org/bo...-by-a-j-p-taylor-a-military-times-classic.htm

 

[AngryAnt]

For a general overview of America’s wars: https://cdn.mises.org/The Costs of War Americas Pyrrhic Victories_2.pdf

For an Englishman’s take on the causes of WW2 critical of his countrymen: https://www.military-history.org/bo...-by-a-j-p-taylor-a-military-times-classic.htm

1) Yes, war is bad, expensive, causes suffering untold, etc. Tell us something we don't know Mises guys. None of those chapters look at what would have happened to the world if Germany and Japan were able to rule the world unopposed, or if America just stood out of the war.

2) The Taylor book was about the causes of the war - Taylor hated Hitler and everything he stood for as the piece you cited makes clear. Yes the diplomacy and bungling of the other western countries before WWII was shocking, but Taylor says nothing here about the consequences of not defeating Hitler once the war goes ahead.

You still can't tell me the world would be a better place if the Axis powers were allowed to do what they wanted to do.

 

[Giardiasis]

1) Yes, war is bad, expensive, causes suffering untold, etc. Tell us something we don't know Mises guys. None of those chapters look at what would have happened to the world if Germany and Japan were able to rule the world unopposed, or if America just stood out of the war.

2) The Taylor book was about the causes of the war - Taylor hated Hitler and everything he stood for as the piece you cited makes clear. Yes the diplomacy and bungling of the other western countries before WWII was shocking, but Taylor says nothing here about the consequences of not defeating Hitler once the war goes ahead.

You still can't tell me the world would be a better place if the Axis powers were allowed to do what they wanted to do.

1) You can’t just read the chapter titles and think job done. The essays go into detail on the crimes committed by the US government since the civil war. Good guys they certainly are not.

2) The point is the Western powers very much contributed to WW2 (personally I think they foot the majority of the blame) it wasn’t simply a matter of self defence against an unprovoked aggressor mainstream historians like to make us believe.

What point does your question raise that contradicts my point that there were no good guys in WW2? I’ll concede the level of badness wasn’t the same in some respects. Pretty hard to top genocide, but dropping nuclear bombs on unsuspecting victims to force an unconditional surrender doesn’t seem to raise the ire of the intellectuals as much as it should. https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

A piece of writing that presents both sides of a contentious topic is much more likely to make people reconsider their stance.

 

[snags]

* To change the subject a tad *
I used to think pancakes were crap for breakfast. Then I discovered you could have them with vegemite and cheese. The real game changer for me is cheese and honey. Underrated combo.

Back to the scheduled program Hitler was a C.

 

[MD Jazz]

That's definitely part of it, Lee, but the other part is just listening.

I'm from the school that believes you have two ears and one mouth, so listen twice as much as you talk, even if the 'other' side isn't making what you or I might deem to be sense.

People who feel they're not being heard can make some weird choices. They need to be engaged and understood, not dismissed.

The Vanstone article shows a lack of foresight, is unhelpfully partisan and contains unnecessary hyperbole, but even if the only insight I get from it is a better understanding of the conservative mode of thought and how the political game works, I find it useful.

I guess it's about being secure enough to remain curious for life.

Just read the Vanstone article. Agree, a partisan shocker. Doubt she’s written worse.
But hardly surprising in such an antagonist environment. The best thing about it was it’s reasonably short length.

 

[AngryAnt]

1) You can’t just read the chapter titles and think job done. The essays go into detail on the crimes committed by the US government since the civil war. Good guys they certainly are not.

2) The point is the Western powers very much contributed to WW2 (personally I think they foot the majority of the blame) it wasn’t simply a matter of self defence against an unprovoked aggressor mainstream historians like to make us believe.

What point does your question raise that contradicts my point that there were no good guys in WW2? I’ll concede the level of badness wasn’t the same in some respects. Pretty hard to top genocide, but dropping nuclear bombs on unsuspecting victims to force an unconditional surrender doesn’t seem to raise the ire of the intellectuals as much as it should. https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

Never said they were. Add Vietnam and Iraq to the list. Also a bunch of CIA sponsored anti-democratic coups in South America and Indonesia. But we were talking about the second World War.

PS I agree, war is bad and evil people get rich from it.

2) The point is the Western powers very much contributed to WW2 (personally I think they foot the majority of the blame) it wasn’t simply a matter of self defence against an unprovoked aggressor mainstream historians like to make us believe.

No matter how inept the diplomacy and power plays of the West were prior to WWII, Hitler and his Nazis made the decision to start the war. Their agenda was domination of the Europe, the extermination of Jews (and others), the suppression of independent thought, the God-worship of Hitler and so on.

What point does your question raise that contradicts my point that there were no good guys in WW2? I’ll concede the level of badness wasn’t the same in some respects. Pretty hard to top genocide, but dropping nuclear bombs on unsuspecting victims to force an unconditional surrender doesn’t seem to raise the ire of the intellectuals as much as it should. https://mises.org/library/hiroshima-myth

Oh the Left and the Nuclear Disarmament Movement were very active for 30 years or more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe you didn't notice it.

"there were no good guys" is reducto ad absurdum, unless you think a world where Europe is Nazi and Asia is a Japanese military empire is equivalent to what we have now.

 

[TigerPort]

I've told this story before but I met him in the rooms after the 17 win. I'd had enough beers to admit I would have sacked him after 2016 and he laughed and said so would I.

You had the knives out for Hardwick earlier than 2016

 

[Giardiasis]

Never said they were. Add Vietnam and Iraq to the list. Also a bunch of CIA sponsored anti-democratic coups in South America and Indonesia. But we were talking about the second World War.

PS I agree, war is bad and evil people get rich from it.



No matter how inept the diplomacy and power plays of the West were prior to WWII, Hitler and his Nazis made the decision to start the war. Their agenda was domination of the Europe, the extermination of Jews (and others), the suppression of independent thought, the God-worship of Hitler and so on.



Oh the Left and the Nuclear Disarmament Movement were very active for 30 years or more about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe you didn't notice it.

"there were no good guys" is reducto ad absurdum, unless you think a world where Europe is Nazi and Asia is a Japanese military empire is equivalent to what we have now.

WW2 and WW1 (which you can’t ignore when looking at WW2) were included in the essays. You asked for some material I provided it, I suggest you actually read it before throwing strong counter arguments.

Again you make a strong statement about who “started” the war, you haven’t read the counter arguments so I’m not sure why you asked for me to provide material given how you aren’t interested in reading it.

Point I’m making is that the atomic bombs dropped by the US was an abhorrent crime, yet I don’t think anyone involved faced any consequences of it given they were the victors nor would the US government admit that it was a crime. Official line is that it was required to end the war without risking American lives, the historical record shows this to be false.

Reduction ad absurdum isn’t fallacious reasoning. Just because one side is more palatable doesn’t mean they are good in any sense.

 

[DavidSSS]

Point I’m making is that the atomic bombs dropped by the US was an abhorrent crime, yet I don’t think anyone involved faced any consequences of it given they were the victors nor would the US government admit that it was a crime. Official line is that it was required to end the war without risking American lives, the historical record shows this to be false.

They didn't face consequences because they were the victors, we all know that.

But, your original statement was:

but dropping nuclear bombs on unsuspecting victims to force an unconditional surrender doesn’t seem to raise the ire of the intellectuals as much as it should.

This is a very different statement.

Were you at all of those Hiroshima Day demos? I know I was at a fair number of them.

DS