Why is WWI seen so negatively compared with WWII?

[CJK1990]

To me the point is remarkably clear, in that the type of government made little difference, if any, to the majority of the people they ruled, and for who's well being they cared very little. You may disagree with the points made, but they are not really unclear.

But the purpose of government is primarily to protect people's rights, not to secure "well being". The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, the American Revolution, the French Revolution are widely celebrated for that very reason, not because they improved the lives of ordinary people.

As a side note, I am not too sure why you categorize Trotsky as a 'mass murderer'? I am not aware of any atrocities attributable to his orders, indeed most of the POW's held by the Russians spoke well of the treatment they received (see Lt Gen Brian Horrocks). If you wish to claim 'all Bolsheviks were mass murderers' then I am sure others will be willing to level the same charge against politicians in any nation that has ever sent people to war or fought a civil war etc.

It is widely acknowledged, including by Trotsky himself, that he resorted to terror to motivate the Red Army

They were all willing to send millions of men to die rather than accept a diplomatic setback, all willing to allow the killing to continue rather than concede a diplomatic settlement, so they did have a lot in common in just their approach to the war, and I am not bothering to list their similar interests in times of peace as it is going rather beyond the scope of the forum.

The goals of the Entente were far more progressive than those of the Central Powers. That is the difference that matters.

I agree that there were differences, but there were also many similarities, including who's interests the governments represented most.

And again, the same thing could be said about the combatants of most other wars, many of which are viewed positively as I noted above.

Again, I agree, but the German government was certainly more representative than the Russian one, so the war was not a clear cut case of nations siding only with those of similar political systems.

The same argument would apply to the USSR and WWII.

[Don71]

The goals of the Entente were far more progressive than those of the Central Powers. That is the difference that matters.

So the defending of Pan-Slavism, one of the main reason of the outbrake of WWI, was a progressive goal? Ridiculous!

[Attrition]

Fascism is nothing but capitalist reaction; from the point of view of the proletariat the difference between the types of reaction is meaningless. Leon Trotsky, What Next? (1932)

Bravo! I really don't have a dog in this fight however nicely referenced!

Really? Because I suspect most people are not able to decipher the point he is trying to make from his radical sloganeering and would in any event find the citation of a Bolshevik mass murderer morally repulsive.

Is he saying that because the governments were all capitalist that means there were no differences? Well that's clearly wrong, obviously there are differences, otherwise they wouldn't have been organized differently in the first place. The Imperial German government did not permit representatives to rule as they did in Britain, France, the U.S. So it was in some sense an arbitrary regime.

What's the difference between a Bolshie mass murderer and a liberal mass murderer or an autocrat or an oligarch? None of the regimes in 1914 were democratic, even the one in New Zealand. Ask the Irish if you don't believe me. The point Trot made was that the effect of bourgeois rule was atrocious. The only difference between him and his enemies was who controls the state, the means by which boss classes exploit the many for the few. That's why white terrors are fouler than the red variety. Plus ca change.

[CJK1990]

What's the difference between a Bolshie mass murderer and a liberal mass murderer or an autocrat or an oligarch? None of the regimes in 1914 were democratic, even the one in New Zealand. Ask the Irish if you don't believe me. The point Trot made was that the effect of bourgeois rule was atrocious. The only difference between him and his enemies was who controls the state, the means by which boss classes exploit the many for the few. That's why white terrors are fouler than the red variety. Plus ca change.

I think we understand that they were all de facto run by elites. I never denied that. But there is a qualitative difference between a government run by liberal elites, as in the UK, and a government run by anti-liberal elites, as was the case in Germany.

[South]

Good morning CJK 1990,

Can you provide a couple of examples regarding the representatives of the "......Imperial German government to rule" with the representatives of the US Congress of this specific period. I am looking to see the contrast.

Danke in advance.

Re France of this era; Have you factored in how France handled their 3 Departments in Algeria ?

Warm regards,

~ Bob

[Attrition]

What's the difference between a Bolshie mass murderer and a liberal mass murderer or an autocrat or an oligarch? None of the regimes in 1914 were democratic, even the one in New Zealand. Ask the Irish if you don't believe me. The point Trot made was that the effect of bourgeois rule was atrocious. The only difference between him and his enemies was who controls the state, the means by which boss classes exploit the many for the few. That's why white terrors are fouler than the red variety. Plus ca change.

I think we understand that they were all de facto run by elites. I never denied that. But there is a qualitative difference between a government run by liberal elites, as in the UK, and a government run by anti-liberal elites, as was the case in Germany.

I think that if you study the conduct of the cuddly west Euro imperialists and their intercontinental offshoots in the Americas and Australasia, then the Germans come out of it rather well, quantitatively and qualitatively. It's the founding myth of the C20th liberals that they were normal and that other regimes were the exception, yet empirical study demonstrates that the liberals were the swiftest to shelve their "traditional enlightenment" values and get the ultraviolence going. We're still living through it; Stalinism, Maoism and nazism were the bastard children of C19th liberalism.

[CJK1990]

I think that if you study the conduct of the cuddly west Euro imperialists and their intercontinental offshoots in the Americas and Australasia, then the Germans come out of it rather well, quantitatively and qualitatively. It's the founding myth of the C20th liberals that they were normal and that other regimes were the exception, yet empirical study demonstrates that the liberals were the swiftest to shelve their "traditional enlightenment" values and get the ultraviolence going. We're still living through it; Stalinism, Maoism and nazism were the bastard children of C19th liberalism.

OK but their "violence" was aimed at people and groups who did not share their liberal values, with every intention of raising those values.

It's like saying "Christianity was a violent religion" because of the crusades and witch hunts, ignoring the fact that it was aimed at people who, in their sincerest opinions, did not share the core values of Christianity.

[Attrition]

I'm sure that the perpetrators of the vilest crimes against humanity in world history would agree with you that they were liberally exterminating "others" but extermination is extermination, it doesn't "raise" liberal values, it demonstrates their moral bankruptcy. Liberalism rests on piles of bones that make the crimes of the C20th dictators like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Churchill and Truman look like birthday presents

[Terry Duncan]

OK but their "violence" was aimed at people and groups who did not share their liberal values, with every intention of raising those values.

It's like saying "Christianity was a violent religion" because of the crusades and witch hunts, ignoring the fact that it was aimed at people who, in their sincerest opinions, did not share the core values of Christianity.

If you remove the word "Christianity" and replace it with "Communism" you will have a nice defence of the actions of Mao and Stalin. The actions taken by each society were those they believed would benefit the majority in some way, and they were all willing to destroy systems different to their own or groups that didn't fit in within the societies. However, this is getting rather a long way from the subject matter or even the points raised about the Wilhelmine government up to 1914. The system was not perfect, but it had not had too much time to improve the original set up, whilst other nations had the benefit of a hundred years at least to adapt.

[BDV]

The goals of the Entente were far more progressive than those of the Central Powers.

Rabid nationalism is a progressive goal? Political assassination is a progressive value? That does indeed explain a few things.

[Attrition]

I don't agree that crimes against humanity are idealistic or even utilitarian, although there was enough of both; murder is murder. The only differences between states are the lies they tell about the people they murder. That's why there is so little difference between "ideologies" of right and left, all seek to control the state on the assumption that the people they will murder are the ones who deserve it. Only anarchists stand outside this, since they seek to disband the state and replace it with a society of laws.

It's important to dish the red herring about pre-1914 states being more or less moral, more or less constitutional, more or less democratic, therefore more or less justified in their actions in 1914. They were equally vile and they still are; ask the Syrians.

[CJK1990]

You guys misunderstood my point.

The so-called "crimes" of the liberals were by and large expedients employed against external foes. Liberal values were temporarily set aside so they could flourish in the long run.

The "crimes" of the Nazis, Communists, and others were by and large against internal foes and entirely in conformity with their ideologies that devalued individual human life.

It is simple nihilism to conclude that using force to protect people's rights and using force to deprive people of rights is the same thing merely because force is used.

[Attrition]

Sophistry! As I pointed out, nazis and communists are bastardised liberals, the other side of an obscene coin. Force is an abuse of peoples' rights whatever the "motive". You can't "set aside" civilised behaviour to beget civilisation, only negate it. Ask the Bengalis.

[CJK1990]

Sophistry! As I pointed out, nazis and communists are bastardised liberals, the other side of an obscene coin. Force is an abuse of peoples' rights whatever the "motive". You can't "set aside" civilised behaviour to beget civilisation, only negate it. Ask the Bengalis.

And yet people do it all the time. If you see someone being mugged, most people would use force to stop it. However, this back and forth use of force for good and evil purposes becomes tiresome which is why people invented the state. The state exists to monopolize force and employ force so massive that individuals are deterred from using force in the first place.

The state and it's laws thus represents the spiritual advancement of communities, what is called "civilization". However, every country has a different level of civilization. When a higher civilization, a civilization that protects rights on a very advanced level, comes into contact with a lower civilization a spiritual clash ensues where the higher civilization strives to replace the lower civilization with a better civilization. The same procedure is followed when the state takes children away from well meaning but dysfunctional parents.

[BDV]

The state and it's laws thus represents the spiritual advancement of communities, what is called "civilization". However, every country has a different level of civilization. When a higher civilization, a civilization that protects rights on a very advanced level, comes into contact with a lower civilization a spiritual clash ensues where the higher civilization strives to replace the lower civilization with a better civilization.

Ach, the tyranny of good intentions and the white-mans-burden in one! Truly, AHF is an unusual place to see these stale konzeptae rehashed. Together!

The same procedure is followed when the state takes children away from well meaning but dysfunctional parents.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.