Europe at War

[SimonNZ]

This statement is detached from reality; this is not an abstract discussion, an online game of Risk.  Hundreds of thousands of people have died.  The very real situation on the ground is hell on earth for people in Ukraine.

 

Could we please do away with this fiction that you give a shit about the suffering of the Ukrainians?

Once you've given away whole regions in the "settlement" you advocate that is when the "hell on earth" begins for any person who wasn't supporting the Russians. That's when the "othering" of non-Russians will be fully let loose.

[Madiel]

Could we please do away with this fiction that you give a shit about the suffering of the Ukrainians?

Once you've given away whole regions in the "settlement" you advocate that is when the "hell on earth" begins for any person who wasn't supporting the Russians. That's when the "othering" of non-Russians will be fully let loose.

As I generally don't read Todd's posts I hadn't seen the astonishing paragraph you quote.

It's astonishing because, as always, it comes with no acknowledgment of who has actually caused the situation. Honestly, Todd frequently comes across as if what's happened to Ukraine is some kind of natural disaster because of his relentless determination to not attribute blame to Russia. If he does attribute blame, it's to a myriad of countries other than the one that actually invaded.

Telling other people that they're detached from reality when he never deals with the reality of who is killing all those dead Ukrainians would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Yes, Todd, hundreds of thousands of people have died. And you won't talk about the murderers.

[SimonNZ]

Look, I annexed Todd's house months ago. It's mine now. Laughably disappointed at how few of you are making purchase offers. I'm willing to negotiate on price.

Ah, but I don't have to make a purchase. With Todd's "instant squatters rights" view of ownership I just have to wait until you run to the shops, plonk myself down in Todd's favorite chair and its my house, not either of yours.

[Madiel]

Ah, but I don't have to make a purchase. With Todd's "instant squatters rights" view of ownership I just have to wait until you run to the shops, plonk myself down in Todd's favorite chair and its my house, not either of yours.

What makes you think I'm there? I own it. I didn't say I LIVE in it. Ewww.

[SimonNZ]

What makes you think I'm there? I own it. I didn't say I LIVE in it. Ewww.

Just so long as none of the warmongers here suggest that Todd should fight for what's his.

[Madiel]

Just so long as none of the warmongers here suggest that Todd should fight for what's his.

Well quite. I've been offering "his" house for sale for several months now, and no-one has said a thing against it. Least of all Todd.

[Que]

The very fact that Putin is threatening with nuclear weapons in order to take and keep whatever foreign territory he desires, only underlines the importance of stopping him right here and now. And from a global geopolitical perspective accepting forceable annexations under nuclear great is a very dangerous precedent indeed.

And Putin is bluffing: the entire Crimea is being fortified as we speak. He very well knows the Ukranians are coming. Soon.

[Fëanor]

The main purpose of maintaining nuclear weapon stockpiles is to act as a deterrent to other great powers.  In practical terms, they also allow all nuclear powers some freedom of action and the ability to use grotesque threats against other powers.  Russia does it.  The US does it.  Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Trump all threatened, either publicly or privately, to use nuclear weapons against various foes for various reasons.  The US has publicly made it a point to not adopt a no first use policy.  Nuclear blackmail is common and useful.  Even Kim Jong-un knows that.

So, with a whiff of whataboutism, you are justifying Putin's use of nuclear blackmail and use of nuclear blackmail(?)

In fairness the USA has only ever threatened use of nuclear weapons as retaliation for use by of nukes by another power (--you said as much yourself).  This is significantly different from Putin's threat which is for first-use in case of (his perceived) threat to Russian sovereignty.  Now for convenience of his threat, he as arbitrarily included Crimea and the Donbas his definition of Russian sovereign territory.  The USA has never done anything like that.

[Fëanor]

... For instance, who has seriously discussed putting Putin in prison?  That's an inane aside.  You are still stuck in the great man theory of politics.  While clearly Putin has personal motives, more than personal motives are involved.  Wars always involve more than personal motives. 

Putin is apparently under no imminent threat of being ousted.  He isn't the only nostalgist for the Soviet era in Russia.  Not to mention that potentially influential Putin opponents end up shot, poisoned, or defenestrated -- or if they're really lucky, in prison.

Yes, I believe in the "great man" theory of history.  Obviously "great men", based on their personalities as well as time, place, and position, have pivotally influenced the course of history.  Unique individuals has made a difference.  To argue against that implies that history would have created a simulacrum of the given individual who would have done exactly the same thing.  There a few "inevitabilities" in history.

[Florestan]

The very fact that Putin is threatening with nuclear weapons in order to take and keep whatever foreign territory he desires, only underlines the importance of stopping him right here and now

I agree. The question is, who and how can stop him right here, right now?

[Florestan]

Yes, I believe in the "great man" theory of history. 

Which is not even a theory, it's a fact. Anyone who seriously believes that, say, if Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler had not existed, someone else of their contemporaries would have done exactly the same things they did is delusional.

[milk]

Which is not even a theory, it's a fact. Anyone who seriously believes that, say, if Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Mussolini and Hitler had not existed, someone else of their contemporaries would have done exactly the same things they did is delusional.

I'm not sure you're correctly steel-manning the criticisms of the Great Man Theory of history. I have to look it up later but this seems off to me.

[Florestan]

I'm not sure you're correctly steel-manning the criticisms of the Great Man Theory of history. I have to look it up later but this seems off to me.

Go straight to the Epilogue of War and Peace, that's where Tolstoy heavily criticizes the Great Man Theory of History. He might convince you. He ddidn't convince me.

Anyway, feel free to name the French contemporary of Napoleon who could have done what he did.

[Florestan]

Now that I think of it, one could as well dismiss the Great Man Theory of Music. Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg? Nah, they were just the product of their circumstances and had they not existed the circumstances would have produced their equivalent anyway. I say, humbug!

[Todd]

So, with a whiff of whataboutism, you are justifying Putin's use of nuclear blackmail and use of nuclear blackmail(?)

No whataboutism, no justification.  Just explaining how the world works.  Nuclear blackmail and threats are morally wrong whoever engages in the behavior.  The behavior will continue.  Leaders of great powers behave like leaders of great powers; leaders of nuclear powers are prone to using nuclear blackmail and nuclear threats.

Putin is apparently under no imminent threat of being ousted.  He isn't the only nostalgist for the Soviet era in Russia.  Not to mention that potentially influential Putin opponents end up shot, poisoned, or defenestrated -- or if they're really lucky, in prison.

Yes.  So?

Yes, I believe in the "great man" theory of history.

Good to know.

To argue against that implies that history would have created a simulacrum of the given individual who would have done exactly the same thing.

Incorrect.

There a few "inevitabilities" in history.

There are no future inevitabilities.  One can ponder historical inevitabilities all day long.  It's a waste of time.

[Florestan]

If it happened, then it was inevitable. That it might have happened differently or not at all pertains to contrafactual history.

[milk]

Go straight to the Epilogue of War and Peace, that's where Tolstoy heavily criticizes the Great Man Theory of History. He might convince you. He ddidn't convince me.

Anyway, feel free to name the French contemporary of Napoleon who could have done what he did.

Tolstoy was a long time ago. My question would be: what are strongest arguments against it? It could also just be that it's not enough or that there's a compromise or middle position on the matter amongst historians. I had a professor in college who had something like "three Ps." Period, Process and...I forget the last one. I'm pretty foggy on cold medicine tonight. I'm sure you have to take into consideration individuals as well conditions. Napoleon didn't exist in a vacuum. 

[Todd]

Napoleon didn't exist in a vacuum.

I don't believe you.

[Florestan]

I had a professor in college who had something like "three Ps." Period, Process and...I forget the last one.

Probably Person. 

Napoleon didn't exist in a vacuum. 

Sure, it took a lot of historical circumstances and other people's actions for Napoleon to get into a position of power. Once there, though, he stamped the history not only of France but of the whole world with his unique personality. Besides, the very fact that in those circumstances and following those actions it was he, and nobody else, who rose to power attests to his uniqueness.

That being said, I am far from being a fan of Napoleon and I think his actions were mostly deleterious --- but I can't deny he was precisely one of those Great Men of History whose very existence is being denied here.

[Todd]

The great man theory of history satisfies some people's desire for mythology, heroes, and villains.