alexrantwell
Several Christmas messages and articles this year have chosen to focus on the unofficial truce between British and German troops, where soldiers put down their weapons and played football instead, sharing food, cigarettes and general festive cheer.
Despite being commonly over romanticised it’s a heart warming story of people on the ground seeing a folly that those in positions of power do not.
It’s fashionable now to criticise the generals for their incompetence and arrogance, but they were only truly dangerous because people were prepared to heed them.
When I reflect on this though, it becomes sad more than it is heart warming. It is an inherently sad proposition that we celebrate some of the world’s most advanced countries temporarily suspending the mass slaughter of each other’s youth during the season of goodwill in their shared religion. And it is sad that even with nobody to shoot at these young men were kept hundreds of miles from their homes and loved ones.
Saddest of all however that after they had defied the authorities to meet and fraternise with each other, they returned to their respective sides, picked up their arms and resumed what was to become one of the most brutal and destructive conflicts in history which achieved nothing positive for any of the original protagonists.
They could so easily have returned to their homes and averted so much of this damage – the ruination of Germany that would eventually lead to the second world war, the hasty overthrow of the Russian monarchy which led directly to the horrors of the Soviet Union and the decline of France and Britain to the point that neither will able to effectively thwart the rise of fascism or contain Germany, even bound by sanctions and struggling economically as it was.
It’s of course impossible to measure the impact any of these things or say with certainty that modern Europe would be a better place had World War 1 not happened, but it seems highly likely that it would be a much better place, and that just a small step further through an already open door would have spared us this gruesome episode.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
The Drum-beat to War?
Britain and Iran: Breaking the Chains of Misrule
Anatomy of a Revolution – Arguably Legal to Publish in England
From Time to Time: A Review
Foreign Devils: Fear, Admiration, and the Future of Civilisation
The Madness of the Neoconservatives: A Disaster Britain Must Avoid
Tea, Trade, and Polite Civility: Chinese Visitors in 18th-Century London and the Realities of Cultural Exchange
Powered by YARPP.
From the point of view of fashionable German philosophy, not just people like Fichte or List, but relatively respectable people such as Hegel, worship of the state and expansionist war was not “folly” – it was what they believed in. They could be flexible, for example Hegel turned his coat by backing Napoleon against Prussia and then, when Napoleon eventually lost, turned his coat again, but the worship of power was a constant – as was the use of “philosophy” to justify it all.
And there were more in the non German speaking world that agreed with all this than one might think. For example, under his “liberalism” (the language he felt compelled to use in order not to seem like a total traitor to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) President Woodrow Wilson was just as much a state worshipper as any German philosophy-statesman – he rejected the idea of universal principles of freedom and justice (based upon a universal view of the human mind) – that went against not against Wilson’s racialism, but also his historicism – his Hegelian philosophy (both from Johns Hopkins University – and from his mentor Richard Ely, indeed Richard Ely’s problem with Imperial Germany was that it did not go far enough, that it was “held back” by old institutions and attitudes, for example the landed aristocracy).
Adolf Hitler was a corporal – he did not invent the philosophical parts of National Socialism. The stress on the state can be found in Hegel, indeed in thinkers long before Hegel (as long before as Martin Luther) in German thought (although the Nazis rejected the independence of the bureaucracy which is part of the Hegelian tradition). The economic ideas in List and others. The anti Semitism can be found in Fichte (or even in Martin Luther – whom Hitler upset decent Lutherans by quoting at length, they were especially upset because they knew Mr Hitler may have been quoting an old and sick Luther – but he was NOT quoting him out of context), the extreme nationalism – from Fichte again. Even gentle Herder was roped in – after all, whilst he did not want to hurt anyone, Herder had taught that different nationalities must have different fundamental rules (that the basic principles were not universal), and that nationality was not a matter of history – but inherent, a matter of basic race.
German war aims in 1914 were to destroy France and Russia and to dominate all of Europe – and a prelude to the longer term domination of the world, by replacing the Britain (and the United States – “the supreme fact of the 20th century will be that the British and the Americans share a language” had long been a nightmare of German thought) on the world stage. By any means necessary – including the eventual invasion of Britain once the coastline of Europe and the basic resources of Europe were under German command.
Adolf Hitler did not have different long term war aims in 1939 than Imperial Germany had in 1914 – he just used more ruthless methods. For example, instead of ranting about killing the Jews (as the Kaiser and so many did – at least on their “bad days”, the Kaiser being mentally unstable, and listening to people who were worse than he was including the renegade Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain who was “more German than the Germans”) but actually doing it.
And instead of just producing a tissue of lies as an excuse for war – going that one step further…… In 1914 the Imperial German government produced a Declaration of War upon France that was a tissue of lies, lies that were extreme even by the standards of government. France was supposedly bombing Bavaria and on and on (all lies – blatant lies). It led to the President of France, a philosopher (and one who knew how German philosophical thought had revolted against even the idea of universal principles of natural justice, reason and moral responsibility) rightly replied that the German elite had turned what had been a dispute between counties into a German war on the universal principles of justice and reason themselves – but Hitler went further, instead of just lying about a Polish attack (as Imperial Germany would have done), he had concentration camp victims dressed up in German uniforms, then had them murdered – and blamed the Poles, showing the dead bodies of the “German soldiers – killed by the Polish attack” as an excuse for the attack upon Poland in 1939. But Mr Hitler was only taking to its logical conclusion philosophical ideas (the revolt against the “chains of right and wrong” and the desire to be “free not to be free” – to be free of moral responsibility, to be free of shame and guilt, to be “free” to be a BEAST, as in a popular interpretation of Nietzsche – although it may really owe more to Nietzsche’s sister) that was fashionable long before Hitler became important.
Perhaps the rise of National Socialism Germany and Marxism (itself really “left Hegelianism” Karl Marx just being one of those who tried to twist Hegel, turn him on his head, take what was already evil and make it vastly more evil) in Russia could have been prevented – but not by avoiding war in 1914. War was inevitable – it had been since the death of the Keiser’s father in 1888 – the last great German figure of the core elite to REJECT the politics of “blood and iron”.
The totalitarian evils of National Socialism and Marxism could only have been prevented by the more rapid and more total defeat of Germany in the First World War. No “20 years truce” that Marshal Foch denounced in 1919 (yes he even got the date of the next war correct) – but the total and open defeat of Germany, as both Foch and the American General Pershing wanted.
However, the chance of a rapid defeat of Germany died at Sulva Bay in 1915 when, due to the incompetence (and the cowardice – in some cases) of certain British Generals, the chance to knock Turkey out of the way (by capturing positions so as to allow the Royal Navy to sail to Constantinople) and link up with the Russians, thus encircling Germany, was thrown away.
After four years of war and a million British Empire deaths, and almost two million French Empire deaths, few wanted a fight to the finish in 1918 – a march on Berlin. Most people, with Russia already collapsed into chaos (which could have been prevented in 1915 – but the chance was thrown away at Sulva Bay) were prepared to accept what was officially a German surrender, but was really more of a compromise peace (no restoring the independence of Hanover or Bavaria or anything like that – Germany would stay “unified”), Allied troops stayed in the Rhineland – rather than pushing on, at what was feared would be great cost.
The true defeat of Germany, the defeat of the PHILOSOPHY of Germany, was reserved till 1945 – indeed in a mutant Marxist form, we still face a form of that philosophy today, if one counts the pratfalls of the Frankfurt School as “political philosophy”.
But it has become international – as Ian is fond of pointing out, actually more common in British American universities (and so on) than in modern German intellectual life.
An architectural story makes the point……
After World War II the centre of Nuremberg was rebuilt as it was – even though it had been flattened. Yet less badly damaged British cities were rebuilt as concrete nightmares – even Bath (not really badly damaged at all) was messed about (see “The Sack of Bath”) – why?
In Britain when people suggested rebuilding things as they had been they were told that this would be a pastiche – that it would be “against the spirit of the age”.
Exactly the same arguments were made in Germany – but were met with an answer…..
“That “spirit of the age” stuff is just a bit of mysticism from Hegel – now get out of the way while we rebuild”.
The British, and the Americans, were too ignorant *(and I mean “ignorant” literally – we just did not know) to understand that lines like “it is against the spirit of the age” were not Holy Writ, they were just the theories of a German philosopher – but the Germans (at least most of the Southern Germans, the Bavarians and so on) had had enough of “right Hegelianism” and “left Hegelianism”.
The Germans could see (in the rubble around them) that the racial theories of Fichte and others were nonsense, and that the worship of the state was nonsense – that even in the 1930s Nazi Germany had been a corrupt monster based on lies and fear. And the Germans could also see, in the behaviour of the Soviet rapists and the German Communists who worked with them, that left Hegelianism, was no better – that both forms of collectivism were evil, utterly depraved (offences against the universal principles of reason, individual moral responsibility [agency – personhood], and justice – that both National Socialism and Marxism denied existed).
Of course a minority of Germans carried on with this evil philosophy – such as the Bader Meinhof gang. But most Germans, being still “the most educated people in the world”, both UNDERSTOOD the philosophies of collectivism (which most British and American people did not – and still do not) and made a conscious choice to REJECT the philosophies of National Socialism and Marxism.
CMYK 8, o, o, 2
Yes, very good way of putting it, Paul. The view of the human mind of which you speak is universal not–NOT! in that everyone holds the same view of the human mind (they certainly don’t!), but rather that the nature of the human mind is universal, that is, in its fundamentals the mind or brain or mind-brain (take your pick) is the same for everyman, everywhere and everywhen, barring cases of damage or faulty development. (And even when people disagree about what that nature is, the opponents often hold that their sharply differing viewpoints do apply “universally” to everyone.)
Persons who believe a man is a “clockwork mouse,” believe that to be true of everyone: universally true. At the other extreme, people who believe that the soul, and therefore the person, knows no constraints except those of its own will (and possibly the laws of physics as observed in inanimate matter), hold this to be universally true.
(There are of course those who believe that mind-brain capacities differ in degrees of functionality among the races; if they are sufficiently different in degree, then the difference in degree shades into a difference in quality and then almost a difference in kind. This leads to racist, NON-universal views of the human mind.)
But if one does hold that the fundamental nature of the mind-brain is universal (i.e. in everyone the same), then regardless of what one believes to be the specific measure of what is fundamentally “good” or “bad,” or “right” or “wrong,” for a human mind-brain, or being, or self, one must also hold is fundamentally good, bad, right, wrong for each and every human being’s mind-brain-etc.; that is, what is fundamentally good is the same for all, the same universally. (For example, libertarians properly so-called believe that personal sovereignty — self-rule — or autonomy or self-determination is fundamentally proper to all humans who are physically capable of it.)
Libertarians supposedly do believe that “principles of freedom and justice” are universal: that they are properly applicable to and for all persons everywhere.
This is a fundamental principle. But there is also the fact that different people are different; not in the fundamentals of the human mind or of human “self-ness,” but in the extent to which the given person is able to bring this or that potential into reality as a capacity, and then in the extent of proper development and exercise of that capacity. Also external circumstances of persons differ. So the universal principles of freedom and justice must conform to the reality of each person’s situation.
Let me offer this analogy.
Just as the human mind is for everyone (at a given stage of development and barring pathology) fundamentally the same (regardless of the social environment*), so the laws or principles of aerodynamics are everywhere the same within our atmosphere; though the conditions of the atmosphere change substantially with altitude, the atmosphere is still recognizably the atmosphere*. All aircraft follow the principles of the physics of aerodynamics, which are universal; and all aircraft are intended to be held aloft by following these principles; but how the aircraft is designed to do so depends upon the realities of its particular design. Helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft both depend upon the principle behind aerodynamic lift, and that fact constitutes a fundamental principle of aircraft — analogous with the fundamental principles governing human mind-brain-self (whatever these may be). So any design that aims at “goodness” or “rightness” in terms of aircraft — which is that the machine stay aloft and intact for a given length of time — must apply the principles of aerodynamics per se as well as those of thermodynamics and propulsion mechanisms.
Gliders, of course, have no self-contained propulsion mechanism: they fly by using the potential energy granted by gravity to generate speed which results in lift, and the kinetic energy existing in air currents which also helps them to gain altitude. Or, of course, to lose it if that’s what the pilot desires. The universal principle that speed generates lift still implies that the shape of the airfoil be such that it can generate lift via its speed through the air.
These principles of the design of aircraft are analogous to the principles of freedom and justice in the construction of human political systems. Both are applicable universally, the one when speaking of aircraft and the other when speaking of human political groups.
*But note that the atmosphere itself can become so polluted that human minds do not function properly within it; the same is true of aircraft.
Sigh…always something. Please disregard the “CMYK” business. That’s where I set my background sliders in my TextEdit program.
PS. Paul — Thanks for the interesting and informative comment.
On the war – I have trouble with two sets of people.
One group that say we could have avoided conflict with Germany – we could not, even if we had let them take Europe they would have come knocking anyway.
The other group are the Haig defenders (although they deny being Haig defenders sometimes) who say that our methods in the First World War, on both a strategic and a tactical level, were basically fine – they were not basically fine, they were basically awful. And the fact that some other armies were worse is no defence – not when the British Empire lost almost a million men.
On the philosophical debate – it is a old one Julie (as you know) and none of the terms or the way of putting them together is from me (apart from the clumsiness at times – that is all me).
One point that I should have made (and did not) is that even that German philosopher and political thinker who was known for a universalist point of view and being generally pro human freedom – Kant (Randian Objectivists – control yourselves, I did not say I thought he was wonderful or anything like that) was out of fashion in Germany by 1914.
Yes Kant is bad in various ways, pro world federation, pro “public services” and on and on…….
But by the standards of German philosophy and political thought he was about as good as it gets – so it was a tragedy that his followers lost influence in Germany.
The German philosopher that Ludwig Von Mises most liked was Ernst Cassirer – a Kantian. Randian Objectivists should not be annoyed by this – for who else was there? Aristotleianism was basically dead in the German speaking world – outside the Catholic Empire of the Hapsburgs (Franz Branteno who influenced Carl Menger) and the Common Sense school had never made much of an impact among German speakers (unlike the French – where it was important in the 19th century) and that left the Kantians – or those who were much worse than the Kantians.
Universal logical structure of the mind – regardless of “race” or “historical period”.
What the Aristotelians, the Common Sense School (including people like Harold Prichard and Sir William Ross in the 20th century) and the Kantians (such as Ernst Cassirer) have in common.
The Austrian School of economics needed this against German “historicism” – whether the attacker of that is an economist such as Carl Menger (“The Errors of Historicism” – 1883) or a philosopher such as Karl Popper (“The Poverty of Historicism” – 1957, although most of the work was done long before).
It is Franz Brentano not Branteno – one to add to my legion of spelling errors.