False message of peace conveyed by the Pact of Steel

[Cantankerous]

I saw a propaganda poster advertising the Pact of Steel on page 493 of the book Chronicle of the 20th Century and on this page it is mentioned that one of the stated goals of the Pact of Steel was to create a "just peace". Of course, we know that Hitler's notion of a "just peace" was meaningless and an ideological ruse because Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs knew later on that Hitler did not want peace in Europe and that his notion of peace was about murdering innocents under the banner of creating an Aryan super-state in Europe. The false promise of a "just peace" couched in the Pact of Steel is akin to far-left peace organizations in the late 20th century calling Fidel Castro and Che Guevara peaceful men with no regard for the fact that Fidel and Che's conception of peace was not about peaceful co-existence with non-communists but murdering those in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa to serve Castro and Che's bankrupt communist ideology.

[Carl Schwamberger]

Im not at all sure Im grasping the point of this post, or 'thread (?)

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Cantankerous,

Queen Victoria's reign was sometimes called the Pax Britannica - the "British Peace". In her 63 year reign, the UK apparently fought 70 named wars!

The "Pax Americana", which has supposedly run since WWII, hasn't been exactly devoid of US military intervention either - a Wikipedia list gives 150 US military interventions and deployments since WWII !

Cheers,

Sid.

[Cantankerous]

Im not at all sure Im grasping the point of this post, or 'thread (?)

The deceptive message of a just peace enshrined in the Pact of Steel is comparable to the far-left calling Fidel Castro and Che Guevara peaceful men with no regard for the fact Castro and Che's conception of peace was about murdering innocents to serve their radical vision rather than peaceful co-existence between communists and non-communists in the developing world.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi cantankerous,

"Castro and Che's bankrupt communist ideology" only looks that way from the point of view of a prosperous, advanced liberal democracy. If in 1960 one was living in a poverty stricken ex-colony in the Undeveloped World without universally available education and healthcare, then the perspective was rather different.

There was a reason why Castro, starting with a couple of dozen under-equipped men without outside support, could overthrow the existing Cuban regime in just a couple of years.

And did Castro ever claim he didn't want to export Communism? Just as Christianity advanced behind the Bible, Good Works and the Sword, so Cuban Communism advanced behind Das Kapital, the Stethoscope and the AK47.

As I pointed out above with the examples of the conflict-scarred "Pax Britannica" and "Pax Americana", the Nazis, Fascists and Communists aren't the only one's who have a problem in delivering a truly pacific Peace.

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

Hi Guys

I rather think that ideologies are the problem, regardless of their content and aspirations. People who run a country (or anything) pragmatically (the ideologists would say opportunistically, of course) - ie look for the best solution that benefits the most people, tend to cause less grief. It's when 'the grand plan' becomes more important than the people it is supposed to serve, that the tears and blood soon follow.

On another point - Sid, you are undoubtedly right about the perspective of backward countries. However, in many ways the benefits of one system usually cannot be compared to another because one system replaces another while times change. You've pointed this out yourself, I think, in relation to the Nazi 'economic miracle'. In many ways they benefitted from changes in the economy that were occurring anyway. In much the same way the communists in Poland never ceased to bang on about how bad things were in pre-war Poland and how splendid they became afterwards; rather disingenuously omitting to acknowledge that it was much the same in the entire world because, primarily, of the march of mechanisation, manufacturing, food production, medical progress etc. In other words these things would have happened anyway and, quite possibly given the comparison of the two Germany's, much faster without them.

The same may be asked of Cuba.

Bestest
K

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi gebhk,

I tend to agree.

Osmosis happens between systems and cultures anyway.

However, whoever innovates has an advantage over the rest for the time being.

Some systems are more innovative than others.

Communism was quite good at slipstreaming some decades behind capitalism, which was attractive to societies left even further behind, but it was not so good at innovation.

All the Western, planned, governmental and charitable aid given to Africa since decolonization may have had less of an impact on its betterment than the commercial mobile phone systems set up in the last couple of decades by local private entrepreneurs. Nobody planned that or subsidized it. The technology and hardware was alien, but Africa lapped it up. Osmosis rules!

Cheers,

Sid.

[Cantankerous]

Hi,

I recently found out that the false promise of a "just peace" stated on page 493 of the book Chronicle of the 20th Century to be one of the stated goals of the Pact of Steel actually stems from a quote by Benito Mussolini when he announced on December 11, 1941, that Italy declared war on the US:

"Tomorrow, the Tripartite Pact will become an instrument of just peace between the peoples. Italians! Once more arise and be worthy of this historical hour! We shall win."

[Stiltzkin]

of the stated goals of the Pact of Steel was to create a "just peace"

Well on German or Austrian streets there are occasionally demonstrations, the participants wave similar slogans:
https://www.vienna.at/2022/04/2022-04-1 ... 4x2643.jpg