Posted on 06/16/2013 1:25:22 PM PDT by annalex
Yes. And the least consequential.
The problem with a “nobility” is that it requires nobility.
If you can't argue on the merits, and must resort to ad hominem insults, I'm not interested in attempting to elevate a discussion with you.
Now, seriously, you are not aware of the issues of the Great War continuing through the 20’s and the 30’s into the Second World War? Ever heard of German reparations and demilitarization? The Bolshevik revolutions in Russia Germany, Hungary? Left wing governments in France? Stalin-Hitler pact? One cannot comprehend WWII without seeing its root in the Great War. They are two acts in the same drama.
The problem with Prussian nobility specifically — as it is mentioned in the article — is that it was killed off between 1914 and 1945 and the land was taken. This was truly a civilization destroyed.
Thanks for the ping.
Fascinating. Thank-you.
why not ? i think his concept is fascinating ...
Tiptoeing in...
The statement that “There is no universal answer to the questions of existence”
is false, and a tenant of existentialism - thus Home’s Sartre reference, with which I agree.
I would think a bite-your-head-off-Catholic would agree, anna.
Oops. “tenet”
There is no universal answer to the questions of existence and behavior. Each civilization has its truth and its godsis indeed both false and smacks of existentialism. HomeAtLast, I apologize for being rude and clueless.
I meant to add you to my ping as well; you contributed to the previous Venner thread. See my post 8 about the list.
Also, with the exception of the Royal Family itself, the English nobility was largely killed off by the First World War. The Second World War did in the remainder.
You are forgiven :)
As to Venner lumping WW1 and WW2, I find it arbitrary and strained. The Great War was decisively ended — with the world in a shambles — when Germany surrendered, else there would have been no excessively punitive reparations imposed by the clear victors.
One could as well — in fact, better — call them Bismarck’s Wars, though he died before either of them, and the Kaiser was certainly hostile to him. Bismarck was the single most responsible individual for the 20th century German nation. For all his differences with Wilhelm II, German militarism was born in Bismarck’s head; for all his denunciation of socialism, he built the first modern welfare state.
Nevertheless, history needs to keep some things simple — like when a war begins and ends. I don’t begrudge any foggy and pretentious academic, such as Venner, his perspective on the causes and the historic currents; life’s complicated, we get that; but he should not presume to rearrange the furniture.
Incidentally, I would highly recommend a book titled “The Mind of Germany,” by Hans Kohn. It explores the philosophical underpinnings of modern Germany, and how they came to the disaster of World War II.
True. They are, however, a far smaller group by definition, no?
But no less significant in terms of the national identity of the United Kingdom.
Oh, it’s perfectly fine with me if body transplants happen in my lifetime. I’d love to play “kick the can” once more (another TZ episode).
I do wish they’d hurry up before someone comes to confiscate my Mensa card. In a just world it would be good for a hefty discount.
Thank you.
Sorry, Patton, I thought you were responding to my other post #10 — here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3032048/posts?page=10#10
I really hope they hurry up while I still qualify :D
I agree with Venner on the two wars.
The capitulation of 1918 ended the Western front conflict only, and only for the Western powers. Germany continued operations in the East on the vast territories it received as a gift from Lenin and Trotsky. It is these territories that Hitler and Stalin re-partitioned in 1939.
For Russia, the Great War transformed itself into the Civil War, which metastasized many times. For the White Movement, Germany attacking Russia was clearly a continuation of the Civil war for them; roughly two million Russians volunteered for the Wermacht, not out of particular love for Germany but because it was giving them a chance to re-fight the Civil War.
For Germany, the Second World War was a chance to defeat the Versailles system that they viewed, for a good reason, as grossly unjust. So Germany, far from being “decisively” beaten, conceived WWII as a continuation of the Great War also.
The endless wars of aggression the Soviet Union fought with all its neighbors was, too, a consequence of the breakup of the Russian Empire, that occurred in the course of the Great War.
Hitler wouldn’t have succeeded so spectacularly in continental Europe in the 30’s were it not for the breakup of the Austrian-Hungarian empire and the emerging past 1918 political vacuum in south-central Europe.
The promise of world-wide Communist government sounded by the Communist International was not empty sloganeering in France, Britain and the US at the time. It is the legitimate and rational fear of worldwide communism — not head-in-the-sand appeasement — that drove the policies of France and Britain vis-a-vis Germany till 1939. Had there been no Russian Revolutions in 1917, — a part and parcel of the Great War, — there would be no meteoric rise of the Third Reich and no WWII.
The two wars are inseparable. The outcomes of the first created the second.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.