Remove ads

Controversial Historical Opinions You Have

I've admittedly had times where I wondered if having a executive diarchy, Triumvirate, or decemvirate would have been better than having single executive or simply requiring that all actions of the single executive be either forced to have senate approval for their actions or have to face the senate and explain their actions periodically but ultimately all those options would have their own problems and issues.
 
Alane1 said:
I've admittedly had times where I wondered if having a executive diarchy, Triumvirate, or decemvirate would have been better than having single executive or simply requiring that all actions of the single executive be either forced to have senate approval for their actions or have to face the senate and explain their actions periodically but ultimately all those options would have their own problems and issues.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Honestly, just find a way to make an Executive Cabinet/Ministry Group work. :V

Elected by Parliament, obviously, and thus representing the compositional nature of that, but without actually having an executive figure, and instead engaging in voting or etc for it? Not sure.

Would certianly not be the worst (non-dictatorial, just throwing those out there right now) way of running things ever (that'd (worst-non-dictatorial) be the American Presidency, after all.)
 
Isn't that just collective leadership as intended in the Soviet Union?
 
I mean, outside of Stalin most of the "leaders" of the Soviet Union had significantly less individual power than you'd think and for the most part were simply the frontrunners of a faction within soviet politics that had come to a predominant position. Khrushchev being rather famously ousted and disgraced shortly after his faction fell out of favour due to its lack of tact in dealing with other factions, and Gorbachev outright being couped before Yelstin unilaterally (and illegally, and very unpopularly) seceded Russia from the Soviet Union. And even Stalin himself was simply the most influential man in a clique who could and would have been replaced if he started doing something weird and unpopular with the party like trying to suddenly declare an Orthodox theocracy.

The Soviet Union and the VKP(B) never really operated under the Fuhrerprinzip that the Third Reich and NSDAP did. The narrative of the Soviet Union being a simple Autocracy is an easy one, but it's also an incorrect one that brushes over the labyrinthine internal politics of the Union where even Lenin himself would be openly and flippantly disagreed with repeatedly. The principle of Democratic Centralism did mean that once the party's politburo had reached a majority decision, everyone would get on board with the program yes; but that's a very different mechanism than Fuhrerprinzip. It's also something that most parties and governments that aren't outright autocratic do to some degree to ensure that policy once agreed on, is carried out rather than having unlimited tolerance for the losers of the vote actively and openly stymie making policy into action.

Simply trying to equivocate the USSR and the VKP(B) to Nazi Germany and the NSDAP is not only very much wrong but also a mindset that makes it much harder to actually understand any of those things and why they did what they did. Its something most serious historians who study those things have strongly cautioned against for decades. Especially after the opening of the Soviet archives gave us a much greater degree of access into the internal workings of the VKP(B). What we can see from there is a Union whose governing party had if anything, greater internal division in thought and praxis than the entire party spectrum in most western countries and a continual struggle to be the group that would steer the Union to their desired course. The image of a dogmatic collective blindly following the General Secretary just doesn't bear out.
 
Last edited:
In a better world Wernher Von Braun would have faced actual consequences for the V2 program.
 
I'd suspect in a better world the US would have taken seriously the potential of Robert H Goddard's work and show concern on just why both the Nazis and Soviets were so deeply interested in spying on him.
 
Vindictus said:
Are you really citing the Black Book?

The book that literally used both Nazi soldiers who died in the process of invading the USSR and murdering civilians, and all the civilians those Nazis murdered, as ways to pad out the numbers of 'victims of communism'?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One way to ask is "which sources are you using?". Another way to assume that someelse is using a given source and then berate them for that. The latter is what most people call the strawman argument.

I have given references to around 8 historians (which btw I define as people employed by recognized universities in a capacity related to the study of history).

One (1) of my references are among the many authors of the Black Book of Communism, which btw include: Karel Bartošek, Sylvain Boulougue, Stéphane Courtois, Pascal Fontaine, Rémi Kauffer, Martin Malia, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panné, Pierre Rigoulet, Yves Santamaria, Nicolas Werth. If you are able, you are very welcome to launch a similar critique of the other some 30 works by the above authors, which argue similarly.

The main critique of the book by e.g. Chomsky is that its methodology seems to be "people who died by hunger is hunger are deaths by communism whereas people who died by capitalism aren't counted as deaths by capitalism", which sort fails to acknowledge that only two choices aren't communism and capitalism, and also that whereas many states (historically) have deliberately called themselves communistic states, then no states have called themselves capitalistic. Also, it should be noted, especially in a forum post of "username this" says that and "username that" says this", then many historians such as Ronald Aronson, Tony Judt, Martin Malia, Alan Ryan, Vladimir Tismăneanu, Jean-François Revel, David J. Galloway, Robert Legvold, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jon Wiener, Stanley Hoffmann have agreed in its worth.

AKuz said:
lol, you're literally pulling from Black Book authors. The same people that blame the people killed by the Nazis on Communism, along with the people who "should have existed" had the dastardly communists not had things like abortion.

And then going "Oh this guy totally says that the Communists call for genocide as a fundamental part of the ideology. No I'm not showing you this. But this one dude did say this once, so it's true. Trust me."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, o/c I quoted 8 different authors of which 1 (one) of those were among the 12 historians who authored the "black book", but sure, why not try the strawman-ish approach "the guy who said is bad, therefore it is wrong".

The argument that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels are "these guys" in relation to communism is fanciful. Fair enough, let's assume they are just pre-internet bloggers who are fantasizing about killing people, but if you want to excuse communism, won't you want to call on say: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot or Kim Jong-Sung as your witnesses on how "non-genocidal" communism is? Why don't you do that? Again, I raise my main point: if you believe in stuff like equality and stuff, why use labels such as communism or nazism? Why not just say equality?

Also, could you please point out to me where in the BboC, it explicitly argues that abortions under communistic regimes are similar to the Holocaust? I mean it's not like you are just quoting from a book without having read it, right?
 
The Laurent said:
Are you actually referring to anything concrete here?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Clearest example I've run into is knee-jerk defense and outright celebration of strategic bombing in WWII. It may have been justified in the grand scheme of things, but it was also literally burning children alive by the hundreds and thousands. Call me a bleeding heart, but anyone who doesn't feel at least a little horrified by that makes my skin crawl. It's like learning someone tortures small animals for fun.
 
tankdrop24 said:
In a better world Wernher Von Braun would have faced actual consequences for the V2 program.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think when it comes to post-WW2 Nazis, he is one of the by far least severe cases. "Denazification" was a complete joke. Not that this makes what you say untrue, it just seems a weird first target to me...

The Laurent said:
Honestly, just find a way to make an Executive Cabinet/Ministry Group work. :V

Elected by Parliament, obviously, and thus representing the compositional nature of that, but without actually having an executive figure, and instead engaging in voting or etc for it? Not sure.

Would certianly not be the worst (non-dictatorial, just throwing those out there right now) way of running things ever (that'd (worst-non-dictatorial) be the American Presidency, after all.)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You sort of have that in Switzerland, where they have a concordance system - the Cabinet/Executive (the Federal Council) is collectively run (there is a "Federal President", but that is basically just the chair of the sessions, who has a period of one year, and the position is rotated), and its seven members are drawn from all sufficiently large parties in parliament, according to a fixed key that enshrines what parties get a councillor (and sometimes, a second one), and also how to weigh the country's religious groups, language groups and regions (despite Switzerland having four official languages, for the longest time the confessional divide was actually the thing to bridge here). That generally works very well, as it indeed carries the proportional composition of the legislative even into the executive, and thus I would say that is pretty ideal.

However, that is a matter of political culture, rather than system. Nothing in the Swiss constitution actually prescribes any of that. You could have a majority coalition in parliament elect the Federal Council by itself; technically what they have there is a coalition spanning all important parties. The rotation principle of the Federal President is also political custom, to elect the person who has not been in that office the longest or not at all. And of course, it is much more difficult to cultivate political traditions and unwritten rules than to establish political structures... as America is currently amply demonstrating.
 
skanszy said:
Clearest example I've run into is knee-jerk defense and outright celebration of strategic bombing in WWII. It may have been justified in the grand scheme of things, but it was also literally burning children alive by the hundreds and thousands. Call me a bleeding heart, but anyone who doesn't feel at least a little horrified by that makes my skin crawl. It's like learning someone tortures small animals for fun.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think it's unreasonable to dislike the celebration of it, that can be macabre, but it's perfectly right and proper to defend strategic bombing. Nazi Germany and the rest of the Axis were engines of genocide, there are very few actions that are not justified in stopping that.

The costs of the strategic bombing were tragic, but that doesn't make them any less necessary.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
I think when it comes to post-WW2 Nazis, he is one of the by far least severe cases. "Denazification" was a complete joke. Not that this makes what you say untrue, it just seems a weird first target to me...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Most former nazis aren't romanticized as the man who took as to the moon.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
The costs of the strategic bombing were tragic, but that doesn't make them any less necessary.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Were they necessary though? A lot of the theory behind certain choices for what to bomb turned out to be false. Taking out that one ball-bearing factory was far more costly and nowhere near as decisive as was expected, and Lindeman significantly misrepresented the studies used in part to justify targeting civilian housing as a strategic target.

Like obviously some forms of large scale bombing were militarily prudent and thus "necessary" to a effective war effort, but we should acknowledge that the target selection was not always based on military effectiveness - or indeed even on sound reasoning at all.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
Were they necessary though? A lot of the theory behind certain choices for what to bomb turned out to be false. Taking out that one ball-bearing factory was far more costly and nowhere near as decisive as was expected, and Lindeman significantly misrepresented the studies used in part to justify targeting civilian housing as a strategic target.

Like obviously some forms on large scale bombing were militarily prudent and thus "necessary" to a effective war effort, but we should acknowledge that the target selection was not always based on military effectiveness - or indeed even on sound reasoning at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You could be right, but unless there is reason to believe that it was clearly unnecessary at the time I'll still consider it justified. After all, hindsight is 20/20 and decision-makers would not have access to the same information that we do today.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
Is he romanticized? I mean, he got off scotch-free, that is true, but I think people and pop culture generally deride him for that, rather than romanticize him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, Tom Lehrer didn't seem terribly thrilled at the space program in general.

Among a certain segment of space enthusiasts, I think there's definitely an element of hero-worship for Von Braun that's eager to sweep the V-2 under the rug.
 
Fourthspartan56 said:
You could be right, but unless there is reason to believe that it was clearly unnecessary at the time I'll still consider it justified. After all, hindsight is 20/20 and decision-makers would not have access to the same information that we do today.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
There was plenty of evidence and simple logic around that could have poked holes in at least a few of those decision without need for hindsight, yes. I am quite comfortable in condemning leaders for ordering "militarily necessary" actions on the basis of justifications that are, with even a little critical examination applied, clearly founded on prejudice and self-aggrandizement rather than reasoned analysis.

That said, I also acknowledge that perfection is unreasonable demand, and don't consider the Allied Strategic Bombing campaign to be much worthy of condemnation in this regard.

The British decision to not to provide famine relief in the "east-indies" on the other hand...
 
Susano said:
Is he romanticized? I mean, he got off scotch-free, that is true, but I think people and pop culture generally deride him for that, rather than romanticize him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While true, he is certainly lionized to an extent.
www.nytimes.com

Wernher von Braun, Rocket Pioneer With a Dark Past

Wernher von Braun played a key role in Hitler's rocket program before turning to space exploration.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

" But history is written by the victors, and for all the warranted gratification his later scientific accomplishments gave him, some critics never forgave his contributions to America's wartime enemies. " is an interesting way of downplaying the fact that he was a nazi.

Also,


There's a habit in "neutral" newsmedia of downplaying his Nazi connections.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
Were they necessary though? A lot of the theory behind certain choices for what to bomb turned out to be false. Taking out that one ball-bearing factory was far more costly and nowhere near as decisive as was expected, and Lindeman significantly misrepresented the studies used in part to justify targeting civilian housing as a strategic target.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

If you're talking about Schwinefurt, the thing is that they never actually managed to destroy it. Had the first Schwinefurt raid succeeded we might talk about the strategic bombing campaign in very different terms. By the time of the second the Germans had dispersed the factory production because it was so obviously vulnerable. Something similar could be said about the first Ploesti raid. While it's clear that people had inflated expectations and didn't know what the fuck they were doing at first, it's also true that by late 1943, with the Oil Plan and the Transportation Plan, they did come up with a working conception of how to use strategic bombing effectively and that those plans ultimately did work.
 
As I recall with the later bombings against japan like the infamous Tokyo fire bombing and other fire bombings they apparently targeted the civilian districts first to try overwhelm local firefighting forces then bombed elsewhere to such devastating effect some allied leaders were actually concerned that the atomic bombs might not even phase japan because the firebombing already being conducted were already so devastating.

Indeed to this day from what I gathered we really don't have any idea how many Japanese were actually killed because often as not many records burnt up in the fire bombings bombings and both the Japanese and allied governments put in a effort to downplay the death tolls in official records.
 
Last edited:
Chloe Sullivan said:
Were they necessary though? A lot of the theory behind certain choices for what to bomb turned out to be false. Taking out that one ball-bearing factory was far more costly and nowhere near as decisive as was expected, and Lindeman significantly misrepresented the studies used in part to justify targeting civilian housing as a strategic target.

Like obviously some forms of large scale bombing were militarily prudent and thus "necessary" to a effective war effort, but we should acknowledge that the target selection was not always based on military effectiveness - or indeed even on sound reasoning at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I certainly think that the British don't get nearly enough flack for their area bombing practices, which were not only explicitly targeted against civilians but continued well past the point they were shown to be less effective than American daylight bombings against industrial targets.

But I'm more willing to allow strikes against industrial targets like Schweinfurt, because there is a purpose in attempting to actually reduce German military production directly. Or to put another way, mistakes have to be expected and allowed for in this type of conflict, and I think it's more useful and honest, in this case, to take the campaigns more holistically rather than monofocus on specific targets.
 
Another example: the Union army that defeated the Confederacy and freed the slaves (very good things) was the exact same organization responsible for Sand Creek (a very bad thing, though on a smaller scale). The US army that committed all that ethnic cleansing and genocide against Native Americans in the period after the Civil War was dominated by Union vets. Weird how all those noble paladins fell to evil at exactly the same time. Jingoism sucks, even when it's "ironic" and aimed at fascists.
 
Krasnyy Spartak said:
The narrative of the Soviet Union being a simple Autocracy is an easy one, but it's also an incorrect one that brushes over the labyrinthine internal politics of the Union
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not certain how much that holds true. Every dictator and authoritarian leader has a faction he belongs to and people he needs to appease. That doesn't mean that he tolerates dissent or that, almost all the time, he only leaves office in a coffin.
 
WestOrEast said:
I'm not certain how much that holds true. Every dictator and authoritarian leader has a faction he belongs to and people he needs to appease. That doesn't mean that he tolerates dissent or that, almost all the time, he only leaves office in a coffin.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stalin was the only General Secretary who could really be said to have had autocratic power and even then it wasn't really consolidated until shortly before world war two. Every General Secretary afterwards was simply the face for a faction within the CPSU and generally had less individual ability to make things happen than the U.S President due to the way that power within the Politburo was devolved away from the General Secretary position following Stalin's death. The Politburo was a more centralised means of running a government than the American branches of government, but after Stalin's demise no one man could move as many levers inside of it as the American President could in his government. Khrushchev was straight up tossed out of power once his faction in the Politburo had grown smaller than those opposed to it and Gorbachev rather famously lacked anything approaching the kind of absolute power to make his policies reality.

Throughout the lifetime of the USSR, the CPSU always continued to practice Democratic Centralism; where after a decision had been voted on; it would be followed through without further debate unless another vote was called later on. But before those votes were called it was an incredibly fractious party full of a bewildering array of ideological strains who argued with an immense degree of passion and fervour. Especially before and after Stalin. The intraparty debates of the CPSU were extremely bitterly contested before everyone fell in line as soon as the winner of a vote was decided on. If the General Secretary's measure did not pass the politburo's vote, it wasn't going to happen and there wasn't very much he could do to change that.

This is in contrast to Fuhrerprinzip which is how the NSDAP ran; where the leader of the Party was the sole authority and it did not matter how anyone else in the NSDAP or Germany thought. Fuhrerprinzip was so ingrained into the way the Third Reich was run that much of Germany's legal code had become essentially oral tradition because it was whatever Hitler said it was and could be changed without any process or consultation with anyone else whenever he felt like it.

There was no discussion within the party, there were no debates on policy or action. Indeed Hitler forbade most of Germany's inner circle from meeting without his explicit permission and thus forced literally all major decision making to have to go through his office. Something which famously made Bormann who controlled access to Hitler an enormously powerful man despite just being the guy in charge of scheduling appointments and other clerical duties.

Stalin was just one man in the conservative and chauvinistic faction in the CPSU and could have been replaced by Malenkov, Zhdanov, Molotov or any of his allies at any point in his reign if his allies felt he had outlived his usefulness. For the NSDAP by contrast, in a very real sense the whole thing was held up almost entirely by Adolf Hitler and would have disintegrated without him. And indeed, the NSDAP did disintegrate without him as the German State's once dogmatic desire to fight until extinction deflated all at once and the leadership of the NSDAP went from being willing to carry out the Fuhrer's missive to stand to the bitter end to not being able to find a way out of the sinking ship fast enough.
 
Last edited:
Susano said:
Religion is dogma and "revealed truth" - whereas science is (ideally) all about checking and re-checking and re-re-checking absolutely everything and accepting nothing as fully settled - questioning absolutely everything, taking everything under scrutiny. As such, yes, religion (not religious people) and science (not scientists) are fundamentally incompatible.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's completely untrue, science is loaded with unprovable priors. It has to be just to function. You can't actually prove things like universality, empiricism or even simple causality and most good scientists will admit this.
 
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top