It has been a long and interesting experience maintaining Starfire Talks here on Blogger. It has given me the privacy I needed to compose and put into words my own ideas about what is going on in the world and the meaning of it all. So I want to thank Google here and now for presenting me with this opportunity.
But times change and technology evolves. Despite the positive changes I have seen here at Blogger, after having moved my 'main' blog to Wordpress, I discovered that the services there suit me better. Publishing is easier and the templates seem to me to be more attractive. Not only that, but it attracts more hits.
I have to admit to a sense of disappointment from my experience of creating Starfire Talks. Not only at the lack of interest it inspired in people, but also as to my inability to really resolve or explain things in my own mind. Existing on the internet, this blog was bourn of internet rumours and seeming truths, about the Illuminati, the 9/11 conspiracies and so on. Yet I now wonder if they themselves are really as authentic as they once seemed. I really have no way of knowing, but can only say that what we have here is a record of my falling under their influence, perhaps finding solace in their ideas in the face of an unrelenting media assault on my senses, seemingly aimed at dulling them forever with the tales of woe they contained. The truth isn't as easy to find as I'd hoped, but then again, it has always been hidden behind illusions.
I hope in the new manifestation of Talks, there is a more informal tone, an ease of expression. Yet the semi-anonymous nature of it perhaps precludes it really going anywhere... we will see if that holds up. Personally, I need the anonymity as I would be too embarrassed to face a world that knew my every thought and, even if they were true, perhaps scorned me for them. So a pen-name will continue, eben if it is in a sense cowardly.
I still want to keep up this semi-anonymous way of communicating with the world. I know not many people read it all, but it's a big internet and people, much like myself, are busy with their own areas of interest. Why would they take an interest? Yet, there may well be future historians or even beings from other dimentions who somehow can read all this and might appreciate my take on things, a kind of online diary of my thoughts, if you will. So the blogging will continue, yet over at Wordpress. Please continue to tune into me there, at-
StarfireTalks
May the force be with you, always,
Starfire
Thursday, June 02, 2011
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Towards a New Humanity
It is quite clear to us here that the only solution to the challenges posed by this moment is to press forward with the most important change of all- a change to ourselves. Whilst personal transformation has been a theme for centuries, the potential for humanity to evolve as one has only recently been seen as a possibility. At this point, we hold, it is in fact a necessity for the continued survival of the human race. Our technology has reached a point of no return.
It has reached the point where we either use it to transform our way of interacting with our planet, to make it both post-industrial and harmonious with the ecosystems surrounding us, that we have realised with increasing clarity we are dependent upon- or use it to wipe our sorry asses off the face of the planet before we become a danger to the planets surrounding ours. In this there is a failsafe to nuclear technology; only a peaceful, harmonious society can hope to survive the advent of a nuclear age. One overcome by self-centeredness and blinkered enslavement to special interests will quite simply self-destruct, before it spreads.
Looking at the challenges that face us, we would be well-advised to remember this central and well-designed truism of universe existence. The path to having god-like power is also the path to god-like responsibility and the consideration of others this brings, and in this context I include not only humans, but the rich variety of life with whom we share our planetary existence.
Everything that has happened thus far can only be seen as a warning shot, a shot above the bows, fired by no external enemy, but by us, towards us, warning ourselves of the responsibilities to ourselves and the planet we hold. There was once a time to record history, there was once a time to speak of history's own unfoldment, yet now has come a sudden rush of something that can only be called consciousness, not only the consciousness of a few individuals, but one on a planetary level.
Let us look at the year, look at the calendar and we will see how little time is left, mere moments of this illusion we call time. In these moments, we have to learn new ways, ways in keeping with our enlarged sense of selfhood, fired by our ascendant technology. A world on the verge of discoveries of deep space travel, time travel and on the cusp of computing power that could peer into the very structure of this mathematically-designed universe itself, must awake to itself, must awake to it's own internal unity, it's various members being parts of one body, a body that is waking into consciousness of itself and it's place in the universe.
In many ways, this is the last year before the great beginning. This is a time of great and dramatic change, a sudden unfoldment of evolution, by the end of which former things will be no more. A natural, sustainable world in terms of energy, politics, human inter-relations is the only way forward and it is becoming clearer and clearer all the time. As our dreams, both personal and collective, come closer to fruition, we will all the more strongly reject that which is not in accord with them. For we are not so much being remade by some hypothetical outside force, as remaking ourselves, being ultimately the arbiters of our own destinies, the co-creators of ourselves. A process we are all the more conscious of, as the moment dawns when we can stand upright in mind and heart, as well as merely in bipedal form. A moment in which we will be in touch as never before with who we are, aware as never before of that divine spark burning brightly within us and ready as never before to resume communication with our divine ancestors, who have cared so lovingly for us for all these years.
It has reached the point where we either use it to transform our way of interacting with our planet, to make it both post-industrial and harmonious with the ecosystems surrounding us, that we have realised with increasing clarity we are dependent upon- or use it to wipe our sorry asses off the face of the planet before we become a danger to the planets surrounding ours. In this there is a failsafe to nuclear technology; only a peaceful, harmonious society can hope to survive the advent of a nuclear age. One overcome by self-centeredness and blinkered enslavement to special interests will quite simply self-destruct, before it spreads.
Looking at the challenges that face us, we would be well-advised to remember this central and well-designed truism of universe existence. The path to having god-like power is also the path to god-like responsibility and the consideration of others this brings, and in this context I include not only humans, but the rich variety of life with whom we share our planetary existence.
Everything that has happened thus far can only be seen as a warning shot, a shot above the bows, fired by no external enemy, but by us, towards us, warning ourselves of the responsibilities to ourselves and the planet we hold. There was once a time to record history, there was once a time to speak of history's own unfoldment, yet now has come a sudden rush of something that can only be called consciousness, not only the consciousness of a few individuals, but one on a planetary level.
Let us look at the year, look at the calendar and we will see how little time is left, mere moments of this illusion we call time. In these moments, we have to learn new ways, ways in keeping with our enlarged sense of selfhood, fired by our ascendant technology. A world on the verge of discoveries of deep space travel, time travel and on the cusp of computing power that could peer into the very structure of this mathematically-designed universe itself, must awake to itself, must awake to it's own internal unity, it's various members being parts of one body, a body that is waking into consciousness of itself and it's place in the universe.
In many ways, this is the last year before the great beginning. This is a time of great and dramatic change, a sudden unfoldment of evolution, by the end of which former things will be no more. A natural, sustainable world in terms of energy, politics, human inter-relations is the only way forward and it is becoming clearer and clearer all the time. As our dreams, both personal and collective, come closer to fruition, we will all the more strongly reject that which is not in accord with them. For we are not so much being remade by some hypothetical outside force, as remaking ourselves, being ultimately the arbiters of our own destinies, the co-creators of ourselves. A process we are all the more conscious of, as the moment dawns when we can stand upright in mind and heart, as well as merely in bipedal form. A moment in which we will be in touch as never before with who we are, aware as never before of that divine spark burning brightly within us and ready as never before to resume communication with our divine ancestors, who have cared so lovingly for us for all these years.
Sunday, January 09, 2011
Prayers for Peace
Prayers for the safety of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, recently attacked by an Afghan war veteran, quite probably for her strong support of Obama's healthcare plan and also for the family of Salmaan Taseer in Pakistan, assassinated by his own bodyguard for his support for the religious freedoms of Pakistan's Christian minority. Each were attacked by violent extremists, egged on by the aggressive rhetoric of irressponsible politicians. Sure, the cultures and situations are very different, but these violent actions, attempts at intimidation aimed squarely at human rights activists, clearly show the danger we face from those opposed to the democratic process and the mandate enjoyed by those elected. People, we hold, are more or less the same everywhere, they just express themselves according to the culture they find themselves in. Our superficial differences shouldn't blind us to our essential similarities.
Now in drawing a parallel between the two events I'm not suggesting in any way that the situation between the two countries is similar, nor that support for violent, right-wing extremism is anywhere near the same level in the US as in Pakistan or other parts of the 'Islamic world'. What I am saying is that severe intolerance leads to the same ends, wherever it's ugly head surfaces. Those who do have power have a clear duty to discourage it, not just in terms of actions such as this, but on an emotional level. Of course, Sarah Palin wouldn't have wanted this to happen and her condolences are sincere. Yet her notion of targeting individuals based upon their commitments may well have played some part here. As a popular political leader, she needs to be very careful what she says and how she says it. Her freedom of speech implies a responsibility to use it well. When large groups of people are whipped up into a frenzy, some of them are bound to spin out of control and this can even happen in a relatively developed, stable country, as we know only too well.
Writing these actions off as the bizarre acts of lone madmen simply because they just weren't directly tied to a larger group just won't do it. People act according to the encouragements of their environment. The context they are taking place in is one with countless smaller, un-newsworthy exchanges, such as have stained the ticker-tape of humanity's history for generations. We need to be encouraging people to change within themselves.
So lets's put our faith in democracy as a way of finding the best in the mix of qualities that make up the human race. Lets' expose extremism before it grows in popularity and becomes an even more dangerous phenomenon. To enforce one's views on another is an act of violence, whatever the cultural context. They hope we will be intimidated and run away scared. Yet there are actually more of us than of them, though we should always remember that ultimately there is no 'us' and 'them', whether it be the case of countries or of individuals. The only real revolution starts within every one of us. If we want a better world, we have to change ourselves first of all.
Now in drawing a parallel between the two events I'm not suggesting in any way that the situation between the two countries is similar, nor that support for violent, right-wing extremism is anywhere near the same level in the US as in Pakistan or other parts of the 'Islamic world'. What I am saying is that severe intolerance leads to the same ends, wherever it's ugly head surfaces. Those who do have power have a clear duty to discourage it, not just in terms of actions such as this, but on an emotional level. Of course, Sarah Palin wouldn't have wanted this to happen and her condolences are sincere. Yet her notion of targeting individuals based upon their commitments may well have played some part here. As a popular political leader, she needs to be very careful what she says and how she says it. Her freedom of speech implies a responsibility to use it well. When large groups of people are whipped up into a frenzy, some of them are bound to spin out of control and this can even happen in a relatively developed, stable country, as we know only too well.
Writing these actions off as the bizarre acts of lone madmen simply because they just weren't directly tied to a larger group just won't do it. People act according to the encouragements of their environment. The context they are taking place in is one with countless smaller, un-newsworthy exchanges, such as have stained the ticker-tape of humanity's history for generations. We need to be encouraging people to change within themselves.
So lets's put our faith in democracy as a way of finding the best in the mix of qualities that make up the human race. Lets' expose extremism before it grows in popularity and becomes an even more dangerous phenomenon. To enforce one's views on another is an act of violence, whatever the cultural context. They hope we will be intimidated and run away scared. Yet there are actually more of us than of them, though we should always remember that ultimately there is no 'us' and 'them', whether it be the case of countries or of individuals. The only real revolution starts within every one of us. If we want a better world, we have to change ourselves first of all.
Friday, December 24, 2010
In Response to the Situation for Iraqi Christians in Post-War Iraq
This really is a heart-rending issue, so I decided to comment on it...
First of all, our prayers go out to them, our brothers in faith in a land of terrible spiritual darkness and political uncertainty. Only God can truly provide peace of mind and safety, through his influences on the world. Yet, even as humans, we have a big part to play in this.
It's clear to me that, however unfairly, the association of the Christians with the 'regime change' operation, along with others who actually helped, such as translators, is a large part of the reason they are being singled out like this. Whilst I don't hold with Islam being a tolerant religion, based upon it's history of being quite different, in other times and places such discrimination has also happened because of the assumed 'guilt of association', which is a toxic thing to begin with. It's a horrible shock to see, but it is something that humans have been capable of for a long time. We need reasonable solutions to make sure people are safe.
Bush and Co. should never have invaded unless they were sure they could produce a stable, secular government in a short time. Still, such a government, made by Iraqis for Iraqis is the only hope that this sort of thing, which doesn't tend to happen so much in stable countries, becomes a thing of the past.
Radical groups flourish in anarchy and removing not just Saddam Hussein, but also the Baath party administrators, police and army, pretty much ensured this anarchistic situation, which Iraq is still climbing out of. He was actually putting the brakes on Islamic radicalism, as it was a threat to him too.
It seems to me that evil loves chaos, as it can fulfill it's darkest fantasies in such a time, with no-one able or even willing to stop them. Good requires a certain amount of order, as it is a constructive force. This should be a lesson to the world about attempts to make things better. They should be careful to see that they create what they really want and ensure the safety of the innocent. It seems like radical Islam is so barbaric, it requires strong governments to control. The unsavoury things such governments do may just be the lesser of two evils compared with setting it free.
Freedom, in short, is closely related to safety. If we can't guarantee this to the Iraqi Christians in their own land, then they should be granted safe asylum, as a priority, partly because it seems to me almost no-where in the middle East is truly safe for anyone not a Muslim. We can't just wash our hands of this and hope things get better there. Obama and co has inherited these problems just as much as he inherited the wars that exacerbated them- ironically, as part of their intention was (publicly at least), to create stable, viable, friendly states out of tyranny. Whether this 'lead to gold' alchemy can work is a philosophical point to those living under the effects of it.
Well, that's my two cents on the situation, anyway. Right now north Korea is hogging the headlines, but not only will these issues not go away, we should also urgently study them, to see what lessons can be learnt if we do take part in other regime changes, such as the North Korean problem. In such a case, we shouldn't just fire everyone working for Li'l Kim, as they might actually be decent individuals just doing a job, essential for rebuilding the country. We should be realistic and avoid radical actions. That way, more reasonable people are likely to come to the fore in the aftermath. Your means define your ends, not the other way around.
First of all, our prayers go out to them, our brothers in faith in a land of terrible spiritual darkness and political uncertainty. Only God can truly provide peace of mind and safety, through his influences on the world. Yet, even as humans, we have a big part to play in this.
It's clear to me that, however unfairly, the association of the Christians with the 'regime change' operation, along with others who actually helped, such as translators, is a large part of the reason they are being singled out like this. Whilst I don't hold with Islam being a tolerant religion, based upon it's history of being quite different, in other times and places such discrimination has also happened because of the assumed 'guilt of association', which is a toxic thing to begin with. It's a horrible shock to see, but it is something that humans have been capable of for a long time. We need reasonable solutions to make sure people are safe.
Bush and Co. should never have invaded unless they were sure they could produce a stable, secular government in a short time. Still, such a government, made by Iraqis for Iraqis is the only hope that this sort of thing, which doesn't tend to happen so much in stable countries, becomes a thing of the past.
Radical groups flourish in anarchy and removing not just Saddam Hussein, but also the Baath party administrators, police and army, pretty much ensured this anarchistic situation, which Iraq is still climbing out of. He was actually putting the brakes on Islamic radicalism, as it was a threat to him too.
It seems to me that evil loves chaos, as it can fulfill it's darkest fantasies in such a time, with no-one able or even willing to stop them. Good requires a certain amount of order, as it is a constructive force. This should be a lesson to the world about attempts to make things better. They should be careful to see that they create what they really want and ensure the safety of the innocent. It seems like radical Islam is so barbaric, it requires strong governments to control. The unsavoury things such governments do may just be the lesser of two evils compared with setting it free.
Freedom, in short, is closely related to safety. If we can't guarantee this to the Iraqi Christians in their own land, then they should be granted safe asylum, as a priority, partly because it seems to me almost no-where in the middle East is truly safe for anyone not a Muslim. We can't just wash our hands of this and hope things get better there. Obama and co has inherited these problems just as much as he inherited the wars that exacerbated them- ironically, as part of their intention was (publicly at least), to create stable, viable, friendly states out of tyranny. Whether this 'lead to gold' alchemy can work is a philosophical point to those living under the effects of it.
Well, that's my two cents on the situation, anyway. Right now north Korea is hogging the headlines, but not only will these issues not go away, we should also urgently study them, to see what lessons can be learnt if we do take part in other regime changes, such as the North Korean problem. In such a case, we shouldn't just fire everyone working for Li'l Kim, as they might actually be decent individuals just doing a job, essential for rebuilding the country. We should be realistic and avoid radical actions. That way, more reasonable people are likely to come to the fore in the aftermath. Your means define your ends, not the other way around.
Saturday, September 04, 2010
Why did Germany Lose World War 2
The simplist answer to this is that they were in the wrong- goodness was destined, somehow, to triumph against even the most seemingly unsurmountable evils.
Ultimately, the main reason for his downfall and that of the regime was their evil nature. Whatever dark forces helped him to build up that tremendous army so quickly and hypnotically transfix a whole nation were no match for the powers of goodness.
Had he been more sane, kept calculating rather than act impulsively, surely without defeating many of his enemies, he could have reached an understanding and maintained a limited ‘Reich’ that would have been too costly to invade. A more restrained Hitler would have been a terrible adversary, holding enough forces in reserve to make D-Day too costly to carry out.
We are lucky, in fact that he was so closely identified with evil that forces we would call good galvanised themselves to take care of the problem, however great the cost. For evil is craziness, a misunderstanding of the way reality actually is and a failure to understand the cause and effect relationships that will make it’s intentions impossible to realise. History’s purest yet expression of evil called forth the purest forces of good to oppose it. For me, it’s as clear cut as history gets.
Just sticking to the conventional, historical factors, (though I think whatever had happened, Hitler's craziness would have gotten in the way), I can identify several main reasons-
1) Underestimating the Russians with Barbarossa. Russia is known as an 'unconquerable' nation due to the harsh winter and stubborn people, who could unite against an aggressor like nothing else. By not capturing Moscow as a priority and trying to fight on without preparations for the winter, Hitler was being extremely unrealistic.
2) The lack of enough intelligent propaganda leveled at conquered nations. Although this would go straight against Hitler's twisted world view, presenting themselves as a liberating army to conquered people could have won them valuable allies. In many cases, there were great opportunities here- many people would be happy to be freed from the Soviet Union, or for that matter, from the European Empires they lived in. Yet with great cruelty, the Nazis created new enemies in many places, rather than take the route of 'empire building' through flattery that had worked so well for others.
3) Underestimating Britain. In this, I mean the geographic factors of the channel as much as the people's resolve and technological ingenuity. In fact, it seems obvious to me that Hitler held out the hope that Britain would join him as a somewhat 'fellow Aryan nation', so long as their empire was preserved. Yet such thinking went clearly against that of the British public and was made all the more impossible by the targeting of British cities (even if German cities had themselves been targeted). Hitler's fantasies were not shared and he for long refused to believe it.
4) I put this in order of historical eventuality, not importance, but the declaration of war on the US was a foolish mistake. No doubt the mistaken idea that a prosperous democracy is 'soft' lay behind this, but America's commitment and vast resources were (and still are) unprecedented. That said, had he left them tied up with Japan they might well have hesitated to be drawn into a 'European problem' and restricted themselves to arming friendly countries like Britain for years. Again, we can see Hitler's craziness at work.
5) At heart we have the arrogance and lack of diplomacy at the heart of the Nazi movement, but there was the lack of seriousness in seeking and co-ordinating with Allies. Italy was possibly worse than useless. Spain wasn't brought in and Japan given to fits of fanaticism that couldn't be sustained by her natural resources the way Russia's behaviour was. Fascism was thankfully a flash in the pan (I hope), but a good reason for this was the lack of co-ordination. Attacking Russia in unison, for example, would have made more sense than Japan bringing America into the fray.
6) Antisemitism and lunatic racial theories. This meant that not only in conquered countries, but even from the German population itself, many opportunities were missed. Genius scientists like Einstein went to work for the allies, though presumably if Hitler had kept his personal feelings to himself, he would have had their assistance, though of course this all goes quite against the very essence of the lunatic ideas he entertained. Thinking your own race is superior is one thing. Thinking that entitles you to turn others into hard-labour slaves is another and apart from the immorality involved, it resulted in an inefficient use of labour, resulting in a poorer economy than otherwise possible.
6) Misapplication of technology. Germany had some of the world's best scientists and it is well known that they pioneered dive bombers, submarines, jet aircraft and even ballistic missiles, but the problem with these projects is that they lead to complex and expensive designs that were hard to mass produce as needed. When coupled with an irrationally rushed desire to 'take on the world', they just couldn't be produced fast enough.
7) Hitler refusing to listen to other's advice. Of course, the achilles heel to the whole project, aside from it being despotic and therefor inherently short-lived, was the leader's arrogance and pig-headedness. If he had simply admitted to himself he needed advice from others, it would all have been more sustainable, especially as regards strategic decisions.
I think I'll stop there, as I'm left with the distinct impression that underlying all of this is Hitler's arrogance, on a personal level amongst others. The whole movement was embodies by him, much more than say, Communism, which has it's own texts and various manifestations. Aside from being, as said, crazy, I think he was a frustrated artist at heart- his chosen creation the 'greater Germany'. For me, this explains the unrealistic decision making (which, I think we should remember, did at times work, just not very reliably) and the 'all or nothing' approach.
Fortunately, the Germany we have today is one of the most progressive and forward looking nations on the planet, yet somewhat 'denationalised' by the EU and eclipsed by greater powers like the US. I like to think we can respect what their soldiers went through and even went beyond their usual limits to achieve, without in any way condoning the whole enterprise.
I think by seeing into the Abyss and not wanting any more of it, Germany and Japan made a great effort to make a fresh start in rebuilding their countries. So, despite losing the war, I think they made a better job of learning that war's a bad thing than the winners did. Existing under American protection, though, it's been a bit easier for them to be pacifists.
Ultimately, the main reason for his downfall and that of the regime was their evil nature. Whatever dark forces helped him to build up that tremendous army so quickly and hypnotically transfix a whole nation were no match for the powers of goodness.
Had he been more sane, kept calculating rather than act impulsively, surely without defeating many of his enemies, he could have reached an understanding and maintained a limited ‘Reich’ that would have been too costly to invade. A more restrained Hitler would have been a terrible adversary, holding enough forces in reserve to make D-Day too costly to carry out.
We are lucky, in fact that he was so closely identified with evil that forces we would call good galvanised themselves to take care of the problem, however great the cost. For evil is craziness, a misunderstanding of the way reality actually is and a failure to understand the cause and effect relationships that will make it’s intentions impossible to realise. History’s purest yet expression of evil called forth the purest forces of good to oppose it. For me, it’s as clear cut as history gets.
Just sticking to the conventional, historical factors, (though I think whatever had happened, Hitler's craziness would have gotten in the way), I can identify several main reasons-
1) Underestimating the Russians with Barbarossa. Russia is known as an 'unconquerable' nation due to the harsh winter and stubborn people, who could unite against an aggressor like nothing else. By not capturing Moscow as a priority and trying to fight on without preparations for the winter, Hitler was being extremely unrealistic.
2) The lack of enough intelligent propaganda leveled at conquered nations. Although this would go straight against Hitler's twisted world view, presenting themselves as a liberating army to conquered people could have won them valuable allies. In many cases, there were great opportunities here- many people would be happy to be freed from the Soviet Union, or for that matter, from the European Empires they lived in. Yet with great cruelty, the Nazis created new enemies in many places, rather than take the route of 'empire building' through flattery that had worked so well for others.
3) Underestimating Britain. In this, I mean the geographic factors of the channel as much as the people's resolve and technological ingenuity. In fact, it seems obvious to me that Hitler held out the hope that Britain would join him as a somewhat 'fellow Aryan nation', so long as their empire was preserved. Yet such thinking went clearly against that of the British public and was made all the more impossible by the targeting of British cities (even if German cities had themselves been targeted). Hitler's fantasies were not shared and he for long refused to believe it.
4) I put this in order of historical eventuality, not importance, but the declaration of war on the US was a foolish mistake. No doubt the mistaken idea that a prosperous democracy is 'soft' lay behind this, but America's commitment and vast resources were (and still are) unprecedented. That said, had he left them tied up with Japan they might well have hesitated to be drawn into a 'European problem' and restricted themselves to arming friendly countries like Britain for years. Again, we can see Hitler's craziness at work.
5) At heart we have the arrogance and lack of diplomacy at the heart of the Nazi movement, but there was the lack of seriousness in seeking and co-ordinating with Allies. Italy was possibly worse than useless. Spain wasn't brought in and Japan given to fits of fanaticism that couldn't be sustained by her natural resources the way Russia's behaviour was. Fascism was thankfully a flash in the pan (I hope), but a good reason for this was the lack of co-ordination. Attacking Russia in unison, for example, would have made more sense than Japan bringing America into the fray.
6) Antisemitism and lunatic racial theories. This meant that not only in conquered countries, but even from the German population itself, many opportunities were missed. Genius scientists like Einstein went to work for the allies, though presumably if Hitler had kept his personal feelings to himself, he would have had their assistance, though of course this all goes quite against the very essence of the lunatic ideas he entertained. Thinking your own race is superior is one thing. Thinking that entitles you to turn others into hard-labour slaves is another and apart from the immorality involved, it resulted in an inefficient use of labour, resulting in a poorer economy than otherwise possible.
6) Misapplication of technology. Germany had some of the world's best scientists and it is well known that they pioneered dive bombers, submarines, jet aircraft and even ballistic missiles, but the problem with these projects is that they lead to complex and expensive designs that were hard to mass produce as needed. When coupled with an irrationally rushed desire to 'take on the world', they just couldn't be produced fast enough.
7) Hitler refusing to listen to other's advice. Of course, the achilles heel to the whole project, aside from it being despotic and therefor inherently short-lived, was the leader's arrogance and pig-headedness. If he had simply admitted to himself he needed advice from others, it would all have been more sustainable, especially as regards strategic decisions.
I think I'll stop there, as I'm left with the distinct impression that underlying all of this is Hitler's arrogance, on a personal level amongst others. The whole movement was embodies by him, much more than say, Communism, which has it's own texts and various manifestations. Aside from being, as said, crazy, I think he was a frustrated artist at heart- his chosen creation the 'greater Germany'. For me, this explains the unrealistic decision making (which, I think we should remember, did at times work, just not very reliably) and the 'all or nothing' approach.
Fortunately, the Germany we have today is one of the most progressive and forward looking nations on the planet, yet somewhat 'denationalised' by the EU and eclipsed by greater powers like the US. I like to think we can respect what their soldiers went through and even went beyond their usual limits to achieve, without in any way condoning the whole enterprise.
I think by seeing into the Abyss and not wanting any more of it, Germany and Japan made a great effort to make a fresh start in rebuilding their countries. So, despite losing the war, I think they made a better job of learning that war's a bad thing than the winners did. Existing under American protection, though, it's been a bit easier for them to be pacifists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)