Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Discussion of current events
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by Doc » Sat Apr 14, 2018 8:15 pm

cassowary wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:02 am
Doc wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:19 am
Alexis wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

This is a spin off from another thread. It is an interesting topic which I don't know much about. So I hope to learn something. Above link gave 10 answers.
I think you put one "I" too many in the title of this thread. :)
Or given yesterday's headlines one too few. :D

And the answer to your question Cass is "Darwin" People of the time leading up to WWI generally believed that each nation state was a "race" unto itself. Therefore war was an extension of "Survival of the fittest" Seriously I have a book from that time around here somewhere about Nicola Tesla that's Preface says something like "Telsa is of the hardy Serb "Race" surrounded by Mohamedmen "races"
Yes , I read about that theory I the book, "from Darwin to Hitler" , by Richard Wiekart. The theory goes like this. War is simply part of human nature, a part of evolutionary struggle where the fittest survive and the weak goes extinct. Thus genocide is simply part of what nature intended and Christian morality is out of date.
People delude themselves all the time like this. In WWI everyone believed they would win in a few weeks. Then war happened. And it started out with everyone fighting the last war.
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by Doc » Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:11 am

Jim the Moron wrote:
Sat Apr 14, 2018 6:08 am
neverfail wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:49 pm
cassowary wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:02 am
Doc wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:19 am
Alexis wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:54 am
cassowary wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 11:47 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324

This is a spin off from another thread. It is an interesting topic which I don't know much about. So I hope to learn something. Above link gave 10 answers.
I think you put one "I" too many in the title of this thread. :)
Or given yesterday's headlines one too few. :D

And the answer to your question Cass is "Darwin" People of the time leading up to WWI generally believed that each nation state was a "race" unto itself. Therefore war was an extension of "Survival of the fittest" Seriously I have a book from that time around here somewhere about Nicola Tesla that's Preface says something like "Telsa is of the hardy Serb "Race" surrounded by Mohamedmen "races"
Yes , I read about that theory I the book, "from Darwin to Hitler" , by Richard Wiekart. The theory goes like this. War is simply part of human nature, a part of evolutionary struggle where the fittest survive and the weak goes extinct. Thus genocide is simply part of what nature intended and Christian morality is out of date.
Hold on, you guys.

Social Darwinism? Charles Darwin did not invent the theory that superior life forms supplant inferior ones as a consequence of tooth and claw competition. His memory has been stigmatised with the label unchallenged for far too long. As a consequence of his observations in the Galapagos Islands and elsewhere in the southern hemisphere, Darwin's conclusion was that life forms gradually adapt according to prevailing circumstances. He noted (for example) how a species of small bird that had green feathers on the moister, jungle covered islands at one end of the Galapagos chain had "grown" yellow-brown feathers at the arid, desert end in order to blend in better with the landscape for camouflage.

The "survival of the fittest in the jungle" hypothesis originated from a scientific colleague of Darwin named Edgar Wallace; who spent years in south east Asia collecting rare and unusual insect specimens for preservation and sale to wealthy collectors in England and who kept up a regular correspondence with Darwin from abroad.
Hold on, here. Let's not allow a discussion of war and Social Darwinism get derailed by inaccurate "analysis." I had hoped that someone else had taken up the cudgels here, but here we are:
1. No one here said that Darwin coined the term "survival of the fittest." It is well known that Herbert Spencer (not Wallace) first used the term, after reading Darwin.
2. Alfred Russel (not "Edgar") Wallace was much more than a bug collector in SE Asia. Look him up. The "Wallace Line" remains as a biogeographic concept. I carried around my copy of his "The Malay Archipelago" on my only visit to Sulawesi.

It's post WWI that the creepy racial aspects of who is "fit" and who is not came into play in Germany.
1908
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennhurst ... al#History
Pennhurst State School and Hospital
Segregation and eugenics

In 1913, the legislature appointed a Commission for the Care of the Feeble-Minded which stated that the disabled were unfit for citizenship and posed a menace to the peace, and thus recommended a program of custodial care. Furthermore, the Commission desired to prevent the intermixing of the genes of those imprisoned with the general population. In the Biennial Report to the Legislature submitted by the Board of Trustees, Pennhurst's Chief Physician quoted Henry H. Goddard, a leading eugenicist, as follows:

Every feeble-minded person is a potential criminal. The general public, although more convinced today than ever before that it is a good thing to segregate the idiot or the distinct imbecile, they have not as yet been convinced as to the proper treatment of the defective delinquent, which is the brighter and more dangerous individual.[6]


1859

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence ... les_Darwin
Influences on Karl Marx

Charles Darwin

In late November 1859, Friedrich Engels acquired one of the first 1,250 copies of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species, and then he sent a letter to Karl Marx telling: "Darwin, by the way, whom I'm just reading now, is absolutely splendid". The following year, Marx wrote back to his colleague telling that this book contained the natural-history foundation of the historical materialism viewpoint:[5][6]

These last four weeks, I have read all sorts of things. Among others, Darwin's book on natural selection. Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis on natural history for our view.
— Marx; December 19, 1860.[7][8]

Next month, Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle:

Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.
— Marx; 16 January 1861[9]

By June 1862, Marx had already read again the Origin, finding a connection between Thomas Robert Malthus's work and Darwin's ideas:

I am amused at Darwin, into whom I looked again, when he says that he applies the "Malthusian" theory also to plants and animals.
— Marx; 18 June 1862, in a letter to Engels[10]

In 1863, he quoted Darwin again, within his Theories of Surplus Value (2:121), saying that "In his splendid work, Darwin did not realize that by discovering the 'geometrical progression' in the animal and plant kingdom , he overthrew Malthus theory."[11]

(on the side: People tend to latch on such theories as "survival of the fittest" absolute fact or react it outright even though the truth nearly always lays somewhere in between IE The culture wars have probably been going on since culture was "invented" as scientific populist theories aren't so much about science as easy viral answers)
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm

Doc,

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

The Communists/Socialists are atheists, so are prone to evil. Look at the Democratic Party today. Many are godless Sociaists. So they are anti-religion, especially Christianity.

User avatar
Doc
Posts: 1550
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:09 pm
Location: Cradle To Grave

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by Doc » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:32 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
Doc,

As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."

The Communists/Socialists are atheists, so are prone to evil. Look at the Democratic Party today. Many are godless Sociaists. So they are anti-religion, especially Christianity.
Communists and Socialist aren't atheists. They believe their own leaders are god which they worship at the alter of "Greater Good" where human gods determine who makes up the greater and what is the good.

Darwinism even influenced the American civil war.

"

"When Darwin’s book arrived on these shores in 1859, the U.S. was on the brink of civil war. John Brown’s botched raid on Harpers Ferry had just occurred, and that had ratcheted up tensions over slavery. There is language in newspapers of the time, both in the North and South, that we are two separate peoples, in a struggle to survive.

In drops this book that, among other things, suggests that the state of nature is one of constant struggle, combat, war, and violence. That’s one of the reasons the book was almost immediately embraced by a number of intellectuals, who thought Darwin was describing the world they lived in.

The other issue, of course, is religion. In the U.S., there had long been an ideology that the nation was one divinely chosen by God to lead the world, primarily through the example of democracy. Darwin’s book eliminated the role of God, the need for that Biblical narrative of God creating humans in his own image."

I don't agree with all the conclusions Example much of the south later embraced Forced sterilization eugenics as a off shoot of Darwin's theory of evolution. However Forced sterilization was largely beyond medical skills of the time and with less than two years from it publication until the start of the American civil war people applied it to the world they knew at the moment

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... ar-fuller/
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” … George Orwell

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 1143
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by SteveFoerster » Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:18 pm

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."
A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by neverfail » Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:25 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."
A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.
As if mere belief in God places you beyond the influence of the devil! To presume so seems the greatest of vanity.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:46 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."
A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.
Without God, the social Darwinists are right. Without God, we are just another creature struggling to survive. Only the fittest deserve to survive. So killing the weak is simply part of nature. This will lead to a better human race. It is Christian morality that stands in nature's way.

The notion that we are made in the image of God and so must behave better than mere animals fighting for survival. We are thus held to a higher standard. For the Christan, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth. For the atheistic Darwinist, it is the strong who deserves to inherit the earth and the weak must die. Killing off the weak is simply part of nature.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 1586
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by cassowary » Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:49 pm

neverfail wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:25 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."
A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.
As if mere belief in God places you beyond the influence of the devil! To presume so seems the greatest of vanity.
A lot depends on which god. Different religions give different conceptions of god. If you are a worshipper of Quetzlopoctl, the Aztec god of war, you will find human sacrifices very desirable.

I have written an essay long ago about how Christian beliefs led to human rights

Christianity and Human Rights

neverfail
Posts: 1657
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: Who is to blame for starting WWII?

Post by neverfail » Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:35 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:49 pm
neverfail wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 10:25 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 9:18 pm
cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 5:46 pm
As Dostoevsky said, "Without God, everything is permitted."
A number of non-theists have pointed out that it's a bit unsettling when religious people tacitly suggest it's only their belief in supernatural repercussions that stops them from behaving evilly.
As if mere belief in God places you beyond the influence of the devil! To presume so seems the greatest of vanity.
A lot depends on which god. Different religions give different conceptions of god. If you are a worshipper of Quetzlopoctl, the Aztec god of war, you will find human sacrifices very desirable.

I have written an essay long ago about how Christian beliefs led to human rights

Christianity and Human Rights
I may read your essay and consider it when I have more time at my disposal.

MEANTIME:

My objection was to your tar all with the same brush conjecture: The Communists/Socialists are atheists, so are prone to evil.

In my younger adult tears I personally knew numbers of communists and socialists who to this day I do NOT consider to be evil. Though I did not and still do not agree with their line, the persons themselves usually turned out to be fine individuals.

By contrast, in my formative years and since I have rubbed shoulders with (and suffered at the hands of) no shortage of "christians" who, in various ways, I have reason to believe were actively doing the devil's work.

Being an atheist (defined by a Christian friend of mine as a believer in denial ), I submit, does not automatically place you beyond God's influence. Purporting to be a christian believer does not necessarily place you within it.

User avatar
Alexis
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:46 pm

What is success?

Post by Alexis » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:04 am

cassowary wrote:
Sun Apr 15, 2018 11:46 pm
For the Christan, it is the meek who shall inherit the earth. For the atheistic Darwinist, it is the strong who deserves to inherit the earth and the weak must die. Killing off the weak is simply part of nature.
From the point of view of social Darwinism, the most successful human being to date was Gengis Khan.

A Y-chromosome issued from a male living about eight centuries ago was spotted among several millions males in Asia, meaning that they all are descended in masculine lineage from that single man who from date and place can only be Gengis Khan. Therefore he has had the most reproductive success: many wives and children, many sons who themselves had many wives, etc. From social Darwinism point of view that would be the very definition of success.

Gengis Khan is also the man who triggered the largest known massacres of history as a percentage of global population, the conquests he started killed off an estimated 10% of then world population (Hitler is "only" 2%)

From a moral point of view (Christian, other religious, agnostic morals...) the most successful human beings were the most remarkable by their courage, wisdom, teaching of love and selflessness, characters like Christ, Buddha and others prominent among them. Obviously, from such a point of view, people like Gengis or Hitler were total failures.

Christ had no child and Buddha only one. Relative or total failures, from a social Darwinist point of view.

Note that the modern theory of evolution is not reduced to social Darwinism, which is more its perversion. Generally, no matter the truth of the Darwinian theory of evolution, it's quite clear that theory is not applicable to human evolution.

This is quite clear when one remembers that Christ or Buddha had quite a lot of influence on humankind's future, irrespective of their reproductive failure. For we human beings are not determined by our genes! :lol:

Post Reply