Historical Combat, War, Geopolitics History and Analysis

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,322
Reactions
5 17,822
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Austrians are just Southern Germans just like Bavarians.

Austrians have always been Germans they only got left out in German unification due to Prussia.

German history since the 1700s has been characterised by the Prussia-Austria rivalry both wanted to control all of Germany. Not to mention both of them were the most powerful German states while Bavaria, Stuttgart, Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hamburg all played second fiddle.
 

Blackbeardsgoldfish

Committed member
Moderator
Germany Moderator
Messages
282
Reactions
1 458
Nation of residence
Austria
Nation of origin
Austria
Austrians are just Southern Germans just like Bavarians.

Austrians have always been Germans they only got left out in German unification due to Prussia.

German history since the 1700s has been characterised by the Prussia-Austria rivalry both wanted to control all of Germany. Not to mention both of them were the most powerful German states while Bavaria, Stuttgart, Saxony, Mecklenburg and Hamburg all played second fiddle.
That is largely true.
Austria was the dominate power of the HRE for most of the time and a european power for longer than Prussia, though this was mainly due to the connections and status of the Habsburg dynasty, especially with the Spanish empire.

Maybe I'll get into this sometime later, but it would take a while to collect all the sources for it.
 
M

Manomed

Guest
struggle of what is this ravenman person handicapped? Why should I care about germans or their ideology?
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,322
Reactions
5 17,822
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
That is largely true.
Austria was the dominate power of the HRE for most of the time and a european power for longer than Prussia, though this was mainly due to the connections and status of the Habsburg dynasty, especially with the Spanish empire.

Maybe I'll get into this sometime later, but it would take a while to collect all the sources for it.

Thats true but nobody can deny from 1700s to the 1918 it was Prussia's time to shine. They beaten Austria a lot of times to claim Germany for themselves and led the unification of Germany itself.

Crazy to think that German unification could have went either way with a Prussian dominated one or an Austrian one. But in the end Prussia prevailed. I dont deny the Austrians and the Habsburgs were also a power in their own right. An Austrian dominated Germany today would mean that Southern Germany would be the dominate part with the religion Roman Catholicism being the dominate religion in Germany. But a Prussian led Germany has led to northern Germany being the dominant part of Germany with the Protestant-Lutheran Christianity being the dominant religion of Germany. Germany still has this religious divide of Protestant vs Catholic. Prussians also saw themselves as champions of Protestantism while Austria saw themselves as the champions of Roman Catholicism. Eventhough religion was not the big factor on what made Prussia and Austria as rivals or enemies but it was one lf the various factors on why they were in conflict. Both nations tried to court the various German city states to be part of them.

Ottomans also united most of modern day Turkiye by fighting the various beyliks. Crazy to think one of the Beyliks could have been the ones to be an empire rather than the Ottomans.

Alternate history is interesting because its full of what ifs.
 
Last edited:

Blackbeardsgoldfish

Committed member
Moderator
Germany Moderator
Messages
282
Reactions
1 458
Nation of residence
Austria
Nation of origin
Austria
Thats true but nobody can deny from 1700s to the 1918 it was Prussia's time to shine. They beaten Austria a lot of times to claim Germany for themselves and led the unification of Germany itself.

Crazy to think that German unification could have went either way with a Prussian dominated one or an Austrian one. But in the end Prussia prevailed. I dont deny the Austrians and the Habsburgs were also a power in their own right. An Austrian dominated Germany today would mean that Southern Germany would be the dominate part with the religion Roman Catholicism being the dominate religion in Germany. But a Prussian led Germany has led to northern Germany being the dominant part of Germany with the Protestant-Lutheran Christianity being the dominant religion of Germany. Germany still has this religious divide of Protestant vs Catholic. Prussians also saw themselves as champions of Protestantism while Austria saw themselves as the champions of Roman Catholicism. Eventhough religion was not the big factor on what made Prussia and Austria as rivals or enemies but it was one lf the various factors on why they were in conflict. Both nations tried to court the various German city states to be part of them.

Ottomans also united most of modern day Turkiye by fighting the various beyliks. Crazy to think one of the Beyliks could have been the ones to be an empire rather than the Ottomans.

Alternate history is interesting because its full of what ifs.
Alternate history is a nice thought exercise, but one shouldn't take it serious. It can be a lot of fun to speculate about the historical what if questions, but you never know all the necessary factors to make a workable theory.

Outside the recorded facts of which government made what decision and which force won a battle, there are so many, many factors that aren't recorded in history books. The people working behind the scenes to make these governments and battles possible, the climatic and economic factors prevailing at the time, customs and beliefs that formed communities, and the logical, moral and societal assumptions that were dominant... things that usually don't get recorded, because there is no clear figure or place to connect them to.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,272
Reactions
96 18,816
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
Germany still has this religious divide of Protestant vs Catholic. Prussians also saw themselves as champions of Protestantism while Austria saw themselves as the champions of Roman Catholicism.

You ever look deeply into the matter that was the 30 years war? Sheesh.
 

Ravenman

Contributor
Messages
759
Reactions
1 1,528
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
The Wehrmacht build upon multiple things during the 1930s, it was by no means starting anew and rebuilding from scratch. The “Reichswehr” of the Weimar Republic was conceptualized to only allow the best, most competent and most promising soldiers into its ranks. It was build to be an army of officers that would form the nucleus of a new german army once rearmament was possible. It dictated much of the politics of the Weimar Republic and undermined the democratic process wherever it could. Prussian aristocracy and military tradition embedded themselves covertly into every nook and cranny of the new state, waiting for the right opportunity to give Germany back its military might. The industry and economic base needed for rearmament was build on completely unsustainable debt. So much debt that wars of conquest were the only possible source of income that could finance it. The Nazis fully knew this during the 1930s and gambled on the success of their future wars. The first “victim” of german conquests was Austria, which was a country with vast gold reserves, possessing 343,8 Million Reichsmark in Gold, compared to Germany’s 188,6 RM at the end of 1936. This doesn’t include the private holdings of Austrians, which were also taken for rearmament once Austria had been absorbed. (Source for my figures, it's in german)

Offcourse the Wehrmacht was born from the Reichswehr, like the Turkish Armed Forces from today are the successors of the Ottoman Imperial Army. But that was not my point. My point is that they were the finest militairy force (especially the Heer) of Europe and maybe the world on a quality basis, because of their revolutionary doctrines, excellent officer and NCO training, warrior spirit and generalship superior to every adversary they faced.

Trevor Dupuy found that German soldiers had an average effectiveness of 1.55 versus American soldiers.

That means that 1.55 was the rot of the ratio of bloody casualties between German and American encounters in Italy between July 1943 to December 1944 (note that the German army was declining by that time), discounting strength, vulnerability factor and posture factor (attack, prepared defense, hasty defense, fortified defense and delay).

The vulnerability factors were 1.0 for attack, 1.3 for hasty defense, 1.5 for prepared defense, 1.6 for fortified defense.

The score effectiveness ratio by type of division was:

American Infantry vs
German Infantry 1.25
German Panzer Grenadier 1.97
German Panzer 2.40

American Armour vs
German Infantry 1.30
German Panzer 1.76

Average in engagements: 1.55

They had stunning victories - France and Russia (till Stalingrad) and North Arfica. Even on the defensive there were none better. Have a look at the Italian campaign. Then what if the Russians didnt got supplies from the British and the US? It took the UK, the Russians and the US to defeat them.

The German Army never lost a battle when the terms were even. Every Allied general knew that. The Allied Powers made sure to always have better weapons than they did. They also kept control of the air. The Russians put three men in a battle against one German.

"On a man for man basis, German ground soldiers consistently inflicted casualties at about a 50 percent higher rate than they incurred from the opposing British and American troops under all circumstances. This was true when they were attacking and when they were defending, when they had a local numerical superiority and when they did not, when they won and when they lost.”(Trevor Dupuy from the Dupuy Institute)


Blackbeardsgoldfish said:
The german soldier of 1942 was trudging around the vastness of Russia or the Libyan desert and quickly becoming exhausted, his stomach grew ever hungrier and his equipment deteriorated from the ever scarcer supply.

The german soldier of 2022 is better equipped in basically every aspect outside ideological conviction, and can rely on a political leadership that doesn’t waste the lives of millions for its delusions. He doesn’t have to go hungry or march into his doom, and he doesn’t have to fear for his safety and life for speaking up against his nation, politics or purpose.

A battalion of 2022 soldiers would be able to face and defeat a division of 1942 soldiers.

The German soldier maintained an effective defense in Europe for 11 months under constant and unchallenged air attack, bombarded daily by devastating artillery concentrations, facing heavy odds, sustained by a fraction of the supplies and firepower available to the Allied soldier.

The distance between Berlin and Stalingrad was 2000 kilometers. By this point Germany had beaten the Polish Army, the French Army, the Dutch Army, the Belgian Army, the Norwegian Army and the Danish Army. It had chased any British troops from the continent and had captured millions of Russian soldiers.

The very fact that the Wehrmacht was in front of Stalingrad and people are willing to believe that they could have won is testament to the quality and professionalism of the German soldier.

These guys had such a elite aura. Their willpower, innovations, aesthetics, the fire they have in them. They are on another tier compared to modern Europeans.

Uniforms: Hugo Boss
Tank engines: Porsche
Aircraft engines: BMW
Reich/officer cars: Mercedes Benz
Army trucks: Volkswagen

"We defeated the wrong enemy" (General Patton)

The Brandeburger Division known from the Kaharkov-counteroffensive. The heroic parachutists 1. Fallschirm-Jäger-Division known from the infamous Battle of Crete and equipped with the famous FG-42 or the famous Panzergrenadiere-Division-Großdeutschland, which was arguably one of the best equipped Panzer-grenadier divisions of the war. They saw action in both fronts of the war, including the Battle of France & Operation Barbarossa to name a few.

The Bundeswehr from now with their transgender- and female soldiers wouldnt stand a change against the Wehrmacht.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,272
Reactions
96 18,816
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
James Caan recently passed away. May he rest in peace.

This is one scene (with him) that's been etched in me head since I saw it as a kid, the special brotherhood you develop in war like nowhere else.


@Joe Shearer et al.
 

musings

Member
Messages
8
Reactions
25
Nation of residence
United Kingdom
Nation of origin
Pakistan
Have specifically joined this forum to learn and educate myself about this tragedy. Its probably the biggest catastrophe of my lifetime. All i can do is off er my prayers and condolences to all my Turkish brothers. Please advise of a reliable site to donate on.
Stay strong my Turkish brothers
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,322
Reactions
5 17,822
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey

Its pretty chilling how radio broadcasts bascially became the catalyst for causing a genocide.

Eventhough tensions were there.

Power of radio can really cause people to become monsters overnight.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,272
Reactions
96 18,816
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India

Its pretty chilling how radio broadcasts bascially became the catalyst for causing a genocide.

Eventhough tensions were there.

Power of radio can really cause people to become monsters overnight.

tbh tho, when you read the larger story of Rwanda ( and this has to be done alongside Burundi, Tanzania, DRC and to some degree Uganda as well)..... you will see the power of the radio in the 1994 genocide was overrated.

Though it presents a simple easy answer for the "catalyst" effect...since most folks want simple answers as to the "why" such large scale depravity occurred.

Significant factors often overlooked or not known about (from top of my head, so apologies for errors):

A) Rwanda and Burundi to begin with exist in first place as nationstates today due to Belgium and Germany being on opposite sides of WW1.

Belgium invaded German East Africa (this is the reason why Rwanda and Burundi jut out into Tanzania somewhat unnaturally compared to the geographic delineation present by the rift valley lakes in the area that made the original borders from Berlin conference in 19th century). They got to keep these conquests after WW1 and made arrangements with the clan aristocracy system of the area (dominated by Tutsis in these immediate 2 areas).

This is probably the saddest most underlooked factor of all. If the areas of Rwanda and Burundi simply stayed as part German East Africa (say WW1 never happened).... and were part of Tanganikya (and then Tanzania) for independent modern era..... the Hutus and Tutsis would have been just 2 of dozens of ethnic groups found in Tanzania (some have the total in Tanzania to be around 100+ Bantu groups).....severely reducing polarisation binary potential (clan politics would have been far more hedged).


B) The story of the Tutsi and Hutu to begin with....and how this stratification even occurred over a longer period of time (predating the Belgians + Germans, but then taking new form during colonial era) and how it came to heed during the Rwandan revolution (after independence).

This is part of why Rwanda and Burundi even split into two as Belgians left the area (along with the larger Congo creating the congo crisis and massive war and massacres there took place there as well)


C) All the massacres, pogroms and genocides (both groups did on each other) since B)....and the consequent damage on the social fabric, institutional capacity and cohesion of this area. The DRC (and to a degree Uganda) have been larger sanctuaries of the militia groups and very large refugee populations that waxed and waned during this period.

A very large massacre/genocide for example took place in Burundi in the early 70s that few know about (where the Tutsis were the main perpetrators against the Hutus):


Why/how/when the Kagame (RLPF/A) militia started essentially their civil war (after escaping along with massive refugee population to Uganda) upon Rwanda from the 1980s is its own long story (of power politics that went on prior to it)....along with why this took a whole new level in the 1990s....along with the Burundi civil war that started the same time (with its own set of genocides that occured for 10+ years). It will take too long to get into.

But the radio played a fairly minimal role in making "overnight monsters". It may have nominally helped put the last few rally calls to put in operation of what had long been planned and counter-planned for the brutality that comes with polarised fear-entrenched "winner takes all" that had been inculcated a long while in the living memory of the population (that had often shifted themselves as refugees among 3 - 4 countries in the area, depending who had more of the coercive+violent power in some timespan).

The fuel, kindling and sparks were simply other much larger things than the radio.

This was also why huge numbers of moderates (of "own" group) got killed in these genocides.....massive numbers of Hutu moderates (at all levels from top to bottom of power) were murdered at scale by the larger Hutu population during the Rwanda genocide.

The interior rift valley is one of worst areas in world of polarised power politic heritage and grievance build up going to its worst case scenario.

There are no easy answers here at all to the "why" and "how".
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,322
Reactions
5 17,822
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
tbh tho, when you read the larger story of Rwanda ( and this has to be done alongside Burundi, Tanzania, DRC and to some degree Uganda as well)..... you will see the power of the radio in the 1994 genocide was overrated.

Though it presents a simple easy answer for the "catalyst" effect...since most folks want simple answers as to the "why" such large scale depravity occurred.

Significant factors often overlooked or not known about (from top of my head, so apologies for errors):

A) Rwanda and Burundi to begin with exist in first place as nationstates today due to Belgium and Germany being on opposite sides of WW1.

Belgium invaded German East Africa (this is the reason why Rwanda and Burundi jut out into Tanzania somewhat unnaturally compared to the geographic delineation present by the rift valley lakes in the area that made the original borders from Berlin conference in 19th century). They got to keep these conquests after WW1 and made arrangements with the clan aristocracy system of the area (dominated by Tutsis in these immediate 2 areas).

This is probably the saddest most underlooked factor of all. If the areas of Rwanda and Burundi simply stayed as part German East Africa (say WW1 never happened).... and were part of Tanganikya (and then Tanzania) for independent modern era..... the Hutus and Tutsis would have been just 2 of dozens of ethnic groups found in Tanzania (some have the total in Tanzania to be around 100+ Bantu groups).....severely reducing polarisation binary potential (clan politics would have been far more hedged).


B) The story of the Tutsi and Hutu to begin with....and how this stratification even occurred over a longer period of time (predating the Belgians + Germans, but then taking new form during colonial era) and how it came to heed during the Rwandan revolution (after independence).

This is part of why Rwanda and Burundi even split into two as Belgians left the area (along with the larger Congo creating the congo crisis and massive war and massacres there took place there as well)


C) All the massacres, pogroms and genocides (both groups did on each other) since B)....and the consequent damage on the social fabric, institutional capacity and cohesion of this area. The DRC (and to a degree Uganda) have been larger sanctuaries of the militia groups and very large refugee populations that waxed and waned during this period.

A very large massacre/genocide for example took place in Burundi in the early 70s that few know about (where the Tutsis were the main perpetrators against the Hutus):


Why/how/when the Kagame (RLPF/A) militia started essentially their civil war (after escaping along with massive refugee population to Uganda) upon Rwanda from the 1980s is its own long story (of power politics that went on prior to it)....along with why this took a whole new level in the 1990s....along with the Burundi civil war that started the same time (with its own set of genocides that occured for 10+ years). It will take too long to get into.

But the radio played a fairly minimal role in making "overnight monsters". It may have nominally helped put the last few rally calls to put in operation of what had long been planned and counter-planned for the brutality that comes with polarised fear-entrenched "winner takes all" that had been inculcated a long while in the living memory of the population (that had often shifted themselves as refugees among 3 - 4 countries in the area, depending who had more of the coercive+violent power in some timespan).

The fuel, kindling and sparks were simply other much larger things than the radio.

This was also why huge numbers of moderates (of "own" group) got killed in these genocides.....massive numbers of Hutu moderates (at all levels from top to bottom of power) were murdered at scale by the larger Hutu population during the Rwanda genocide.

The interior rift valley is one of worst areas in world of polarised power politic heritage and grievance build up going to its worst case scenario.

There are no easy answers here at all to the "why" and "how".

I guess with colonial rule ending many ethnic groups began to fight not just for power and control. But also to continue old rivalries.

The other factor often overlooked is the ethnic groups and tribes that actually supported European colonial rule and Europeans awarded them with education and positions of power.

After independance this led to many ethnic groups and tribes to accuse each other of helping the Europeans rule.

Many mixed families especially in Angola and Mozambique led to a exodus of Portuguese Africans because they feared they were next. These were a mix of Natives and Portuguese peoples.
 
Last edited:

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,272
Reactions
96 18,816
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
I guess with colonial rule ending many ethnic groups began to fight not just for power and control. But also to continue old rivalries.

The other factor often overlooked is the ethnic groups and yribes that actually supported European colonial rule and Europeans awarded them with education and positions of power.

After independance this led to many ethnic groups and tribes to accuse each other of helping the Europeans rule.

Many mixed families especially in Angola and Mozambique led to a exodus of Portuguese Africans because they feared they were next. These were a mix of Natives and Portuguese peoples.

The collectivisation of grievance into an "us" vs "them".... has its inertia of terrible consequence.

Human nature is very tribal and lizard-brained if you let it be. We spent far longer period of existence in this kind of reality than the relative newer modern era we (starting to) have now as the overall enlightened reference/backdrop to debate and reference things to.

Politics can try slowly defuse that (extreme tribalism + grievances developed and inflicted from it) and work to something new and better.....or it can do the reverse as well....depending on the context and group of folks you have leading the place in a crucial transition (especially of foreign rule, civil strife, wars with other countries and self-doubt and fear it creates in larger population) etc.

In this regard, Turkiye was quite lucky to have one like Ataturk at the time period in question most crucial for it in the modern era.
 

Nilgiri

Experienced member
Moderator
Aviation Specialist
Messages
9,272
Reactions
96 18,816
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
India
The (classical) Marxists and their close authoritarian-inclined equivalents (be it luddites, fascists, theocrats and still others) all have demonstrably objectified and implemented a radical Hobbesian approach to short circuit this process as fast as possible....which is why these systems have drastically failed (and keep failing, though are often attractive to some populist reactionary to scapegoat or indulge in personal emotional escapism/delusions in any given timeframe).

The evolvement over time into drastically less-honest and less-defined neo-marxist forms (to conflate and merge with neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism) is one of the unfortunate trends picking up this century....as then it becomes simply a zero sum power struggle in the end of might makes right.....which indulges the worst proclivities and tendencies of man, in what can be surmised as "evil" and "corruption".

"Kraut" somewhat uncannily and coincidentally (one day after I made this larger post from which I quote) gave this quite in-depth analysis on the same phenomenon I summarised, but from a geopolitical international relations sense (rather than economic that I premised mine on).

Suffice to say he shares my similar disdain for "might makes right" in the extreme application of Realism to concepts of "empires" and "spheres of influence".

I agree with almost everything he brings up (not surprising since I am a classical liberal on most issues) and it gave me quite a few things to muse upon at the end especially....and would like to hear (over time) what members think and would like to discuss and debate on the deeper layers of this subject and also how it has materialised in the current Ukraine war.

Tagging the folks that hit like on my earlier post, but everyone is welcome to participate....the video is 1.5 hours long (one might need to watch it in parts) but well worth your time (instead of say a netflix movie) if you are interested in this subject.

I have changed the title of this thread to reflect this larger theme by way of a larger set that contains the two previous subsets (combat, war, geopolitics).


@Saithan @Asena_great @Melkor @Rodeo @Vag @Yasar @Ryder et al.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,916
Reactions
64 7,085
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
"Kraut" somewhat uncannily and coincidentally (one day after I made this larger post from which I quote) gave this quite in-depth analysis on the same phenomenon I summarised, but from a geopolitical international relations sense (rather than economic that I premised mine on).

Suffice to say he shares my similar disdain for "might makes right" in the extreme application of Realism to concepts of "empires" and "spheres of influence".

I agree with almost everything he brings up (not surprising since I am a classical liberal on most issues) and it gave me quite a few things to muse upon at the end especially....and would like to hear (over time) what members think and would like to discuss and debate on the deeper layers of this subject and also how it has materialised in the current Ukraine war.

Tagging the folks that hit like on my earlier post, but everyone is welcome to participate....the video is 1.5 hours long (one might need to watch it in parts) but well worth your time (instead of say a netflix movie) if you are interested in this subject.

I have changed the title of this thread to reflect this larger theme by way of a larger set that contains the two previous subsets (combat, war, geopolitics).


@Saithan @Asena_great @Melkor @Rodeo @Vag @Yasar @Ryder et al.
Primarily, it looks to me he is trying to define the overall spectrum of Realist view in his own terms, ignoring other variations and flexibilities in the broader theory itself. Thus, effectively putting it somewhat into a corner. In the process he also seems to misrepresent Noam Chomsky and mischaracterize him, as well as i believe his understanding and analysis of Islamism is incomplete and considerably flawed.

Anyway, this is not to dismiss any criticism of the Realist theory in general nor to blatantly to reject all of his points made in the video.

Indeed, Realism has many flaws and weaknesses and those can debated on as much as we want.
However, even for a dedicated thread i think there would be too many variables in such conversation to be effectively organized for a fruitful outcome.

Instead, here i only want to focus my discussion on the idea of human nature in principle w.r.t both liberal Idealist and pragmatic Realist world views as you yourself also touched upon it in your first post.

Personally to me, despite all the flaws and weakness Realism was able to fundamentally get the premises right about human nature.

Which is, humankind is innately driven by self interest and self preservation thus, by definition they seek power and domination causing everlasting conflicts.

For me, this is unequivocally unchanging and overwhelmingly supported by historical evidences.

On the other hand, the liberal idealist assumption about progressive history/human nature is fundamentally false and simply an illusion.

Because, objectively there is no such thing as PROGRESS.

To avoid misunderstanding i should clarify i am not taking any extreme moral relativist stance, rather i am arguing, the very fundamental and innate human nature is unequivocally unchanging.

And all these so called progresses about 'Freedom, liberty, equality and rights' that we observed with modernity since the enlightenment, is simply RELATIVE CONSEQUENCES of rapid material/technological and economic changes that happened in last few centuries.
Meaning, if somehow our contemporary technological and economic circumstances drastically changes, lets say if human civilization were to be devastated by a nuclear war or something tomorrow, these so called progresses as we perceived them today, may very well cease to exist. Thus, these are not actually progresses, rather these are just some RANDOM changes in light of history.
That could disappear and reoccur again.

So for example, in line with this particular view of the world, fundamentally the abolishment of slavery wasnt accomplished because we human somehow achieved some sort of progress in our morality through enlightenment/classical liberal revolution. ( Usually what liberals try to convince of themselves and others ) Rather it was a socioeconomic consequences of industrial revolution and massive economic/technological changes in a short period of time.

It would be interesting to see if idealist liberals keep making the same mistake over and over again in pursuit of END OF HISTORY, like Francis Fukuyama when he 'famously' declared IT after cold war ended or probably what French revolutionaries thought after the revolution.

ULTIMATELY THERE IS NO END/PEAK OF HISTORY TO REACH AND ACCOMPLISH.

The crisis of modernity is very real, we should accept it. However, i also acknowledge the shortcoming of post modern thinkers like Foucault who denies the very idea of innate HUMAN NATURE itself.


Note, this is not a formal discussion, Anybody can find it incomplete, vague and not well defined, i am okay with it. You are welcome.
 
Last edited:

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,322
Reactions
5 17,822
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
Primarily, it looks to me he is trying to define the overall spectrum of Realist view in his own terms, ignoring other variations and flexibilities in the broader theory itself. Thus, putting it somewhat into a corner, and then criticizing it the way he want. In the process he also seems to misrepresent Noam Chomsky and mischaracterize him, as well as i believe his understanding and analysis of Islamism is incomplete and considerably flawed.

Anyway, this is not to dismiss any criticism of the Realist theory in general nor to blatantly to reject all of his points made in the video.

Indeed, Realism has many flaws and weaknesses and those can debated on as much as we want.
However, even for a dedicated thread i think there would be too many variables in such conversation to be effectively organized for a fruitful outcome.

Instead, here i only want to focus my discussion on the idea of human nature in principle w.r.t both liberal Idealist and pragmatic Realist world views as you yourself also touched upon it in your first post.

Personally to me, despite all the flaws and weakness Realism was able to fundamentally get the premises right about human nature.

Which is, humankind is innately driven by self interest and self preservation thus, by definition they seek power and domination causing everlasting conflicts.

For me, this is unequivocally unchanging and overwhelmingly supported by historical evidences.

On the other hand, the liberal idealist assumption about progressive history/human nature is fundamentally false and simply an illusion.

Cause, objectively there is no such thing as PROGRESS.

To avoid misunderstanding i should clarify i am not taking any moral relativist stance, rather i am arguing, the very fundamental and innate human nature is unequivocally unchanging.

And all these so called progresses about 'rights and liberty' that we observed with modernity since the enlightenment, is simply RELATIVE CONSEQUENCES of rapid material/technological and economic changes that happened in last few centuries.
Meaning, if somehow our contemporary technological and economic circumstances drastically changes, lets say if human civilization were to be devastated by a nuclear war or something, these so called progresses as we perceived them today may very well cease to exist. Thus, these are not actually progresses, rather just some RANDOM changes in light of history.
That could disappear and reoccur.

So for example in line with this particular view of the world, fundamentally the abolishment of slavery didn't happened because we human somehow achieved some sort of progress in our morality through enlightenment/classical liberalism. ( usually what liberals like to believe ) Rather it was a socioeconomic consequences of industrial revolution and massive economic/technological changes in a short time period.

And Francis fukuyama made the same mistake as French revolutionaries.

THERE IS NO END/PEAK OF HISTORY TO REACH AND ACCOMPLISH.



Note, this is not a formal discussion, a casual one. Anybody can find it incomplete, vague and not well defined, i am okay with it. You are welcome.

People forget that the advance of technology actually came from wars and the military.
 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,916
Reactions
64 7,085
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
People forget that the advance of technology actually came from wars and the military.
Could not be more true, and lot of advance in technology ( if not the majority of it ) came from war and conflicts.
For example, the three most significant technological achievement of 20th century by and large came from military appliances.

1. Energy and power production capability of whole mankind has been uniquely revolutionized through nuclear technology.
( I mean, many people still does not fully recognize the extent of what we achieve through the development of nuclear technology. We literally mastered the most Supreme source of ( material ) power and energy in the whole universe. )

2. Digital technology revolution through computers which launched the human civilization in to a completely new age.

"WHEN historians examine the origins of the electronic digital
computer, they usually give top billing to the pioneering efforts of
the American scientists J. Presper Eckert and John W. Mauchly,
who built their Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer
(ENIAC) during World War II. Eckert and Mauchly are justly and
widely honored as the men whose efforts and risks led to the first
machines recognizable as modern computers. They also founded
the first private computer systems company. But historians now
also recognize a lesser known history of the computer, one whose
roots run deep into the most sensitive and secret corners of a
modern military establishment."

Here is very interesting paper about the topic form MIT. The quote is taken from it.


3. The latest revolution of information technology with the INTERNET, which brought unprecedented changes to every aspect of our life.

In below the guardian's article summarized it well.

And there are other domains of technology in which development, military applications and demand played a significant role. ( if not THE main role )
Just for example, in aviation we all know about this man for his innovation in turbojet engine technology.
1676796570144.png

Air Commodore Sir Frank Whittle.

And we can go and on.

However, this topic has a good deal of controversy surrounding it. That is why I avoided it in my first post.

Bro, I always appreciate your straight forward honesty and 'bold statements'.
If you didn't bring it up I probably wouldn't write this.
 
Last edited:

Follow us on social media

Latest posts

Top Bottom