Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

  • News
  • Thread starter AlexES16
  • Start date
  • #326
1,460
1
No I'm not, not at all. NATO was formed with one clear enemy in its sights – the Soviet Union and its allies. The Soviet Union was the UK's ally in WW2. The pattern of allegiances changed.
*sigh*... yes, but that fight started with the rush to Berlin. That predates NATO.

Here are the questions you're still avoiding:

1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance? Given that, how do you expect future wars to be prosecuted without assistance? From an empire to an island... take the hint.

2.) The economic advantage the UK enjoys through its relationship with NATO... you don't have to design and launch a GPS system...until you WANT to. You have traded a measure of freedom for a measure of peace and time to recover from two conflicts that nearly obliterated your country, and decimated your population.

3.) If the USA decided that the Soviets could have had Europe, and did not make that same rush to Berlin... you would not be the UK anymore. That you now find that allience inconvenient is understandable, as the threat no longer exists. By the same token, that's a fairly ****** way of carrying on with an alliance, and short sighted.

4.) Mutual Defense. Ok... as Russ pointed out, it's not that mutual. How do you think the Baltic states would have gone, or so many other issues without NATO involvement? Hell man, your country lost an enitre empire through poor management, and was on the brink of being completely overrun.

5.) The Soviet Union and the US were in a race to Berlin, and if you genuinely don't know that already, you are in no position to speak of history, or these issues.
 
  • #327
Sea Cow
1.) How would WWI, and II have gone without US assistance?
How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?

So what.
 
  • #328
1,460
1
How would WW2 have gone without Soviet assistance?

So what.
You would be speaking German, instead of Russian. Either way, you would never have been born. I note, that you're still picking and choosing what to respond to, and the manner you've chosen is disingenuous, and contrary to the nature of PF, in my view. You're rapidly narrowing the possibilities for why you're acting this way to either blind nationalism, ignorance, or intentional distortion in service of a personal ideology. Really, it's just grating after a while. Either engage, or don't, but if not please don't clutter the place when people are trying to have a reasonable discussion.
 
  • #329
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
You would be speaking German, instead of Russian.
Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.
 
  • #330
1,460
1
Doubtful. The Battle of Britain began June 10, 1940 with the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pack still in place. The Nazi pre-invasion air attack was more/less abandoned long before the Nazis attacked the Soviets. The Brits won the air war with a lot of grit, and one couldn't cross the Channel en masse without air superiority.
...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.

As for post WWII... does that even bear a reiteratrion of the same point? Soviets, or Germans... eventually they would be able to use the vast resources at their command, to crush the British Isles. By the way, the brits won the air war with RADAR, and grit... lets not confuse matters. Over time those tactical advantages would be mitigated by advancing technology and isolation.
 
  • #331
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
...And none of that would have mattered in the long haul. Britain was decimated by WWI, and frankly history has shown just how much that non-agression pact was worth, eh? You don't need to cross the Channel, if you simply STARVE them. What do you think would happen to the UK, cut-off from the rest of Europe, AND the USA? No one would leave the UK alone in such a situation, and one way or another they would be killed, besieged, or conquered. The fact that it would take time, would be largely irrelevant to my point.
Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.
 
  • #332
1,460
1
Non-sequitor. That has little or nothing to do with your point on the outcome dependency of the Soviets entering or not entering the war.
What? I didn't make that point... The Soviets DID enter the war, as a result of German aggression. There is no reason to believe that Hitler would have moderated himself in any circumstances.

My point is, and was, that the UK depended on Allied forces, and subsequent NATO involvement in the partitioning of Germany. What are you talking about?

EDIT: Oooh, I see, my response to the Manatee...
OK, I'm saying that the UK, as a terribly weakened and isolated nation was bound to be snapped-up by one of the dominant powers at the time, and if Russia didn't become involved, then the Germans would have finished the job; they were fairly clear on that in their planning. If the Soviets then became involved in some "What IF?!" scenario, I sincerely doubt that they would have won. In fact, destroying or occupying GB would be critical in closing the western front in that case.

All of this is somewhat tangential, as we were all originally talking about NATO and its role. You're rat-chasing Sea Cow's deflections... something I have found to be singularly unenlightening.
 
Last edited:
  • #334
1,460
1
Here:
You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted. :uhh:
 
  • #335
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
You just sort of ignored my edit... from... well before you posted. :uhh:
ok, missed it
 
  • #336
1,460
1
ok, missed it
Yeah... not really something that needed confirmation, but thanks! Always good to engage in intelligent dialogue with a master of prose from the laconic school. You'll have to forgive me if I choose not to engage with someone who repsonds in a way that would make a Haiku feel cheated. I prefer not to see the thread locked because you want to start a pissing match on PF.
 
  • #337
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
Guys, get it under control. There are too many people nitpicking tangential points and ignoring the main topics for discussion. If you're here just for petty arguments, leave. That's trolling and it is not acceptable here.
 
  • #338
753
2
We had quite a lengthy discussion of that topic and though the author of that makes what looks like a compelling point at first glance, one doesn't have to go much deeper to see the point is clearly flawed. The most obvious and damning fact against his point is that inequality is increasing in most western countries, yet most of those measures are improving.
Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.
 
  • #339
russ_watters
Mentor
19,949
6,440
Actually what I meant to say was fettered capitalism with socialist elements.

Not socialism.
Um, ok......but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
 
  • #340
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,820
0
Um, ok......but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
Russ, this is politics. We don't use studies to form our opinions, just as bludgeons on those with whom we disagree.
 
  • #341
753
2
Everything you type oozes with anti-Americanist, anti-capitalist propaganda.
No. Anti-republican.

Don't call people "you guys," if you don't want to sound like an uber-nationalist.

You say, "you guys" are "still" fighting over basic healthcare, as if your superior people have progressed beyond that primitive issue.
I'm referring libertarians. You guys are so into your issues it's delusional.

"This Sarah Palin phenomenon is very curious. I think somebody watching us from Mars, they would think the country has gone insane." - Noam Chomsky

Why necessarily Mars?

Take all the profit out of US health industries and see if the Canadian system would avoid bankruptcy.
Give me a study.
 
Last edited:
  • #342
753
2
Um, ok......but do you still base that opinion on a study with clearly specious logic?
Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.
 
  • #343
1,460
1
Man if congress consisted of only philosophers that would be very annoying.
I'm curious, do you have any interest at all in a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand, or are you only interested in offering this polemic? This thread has been quite interesting until you and the Manatee/Dugong decided thatit would be more fun to troll than anything else. Frankly I'd be thrilled to see a moderator roll this thread back to the last substational discussion that was being had.

This trajectory you're following ends with this thread locked (which may be what you want), or simply continuing to devolve. I don't really think that's fair to the rest of us who would prefer not to resort to what amounts to petty name-calling.
 
  • #344
Evo
Mentor
23,165
2,872
Closed pending cleanup.
 

Related Threads on Greatest debate in modern history? Socialism(not Stalinism) vs Capitalism

  • Last Post
8
Replies
179
Views
26K
Replies
9
Views
25K
Replies
115
Views
10K
Replies
16
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
658
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top