Permanently Deleted

  • robinn2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    deleted by creator

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      ·
      1 year ago

      You want to explain that giant limbo to me? The US wasn't even in on the treaty of Versailles if that's what you're taking about.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          ·
          1 year ago

          So that makes them entirely the US's fault? Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Capitalists and communists in many countries helped cause their rise to power.

            You're just saying that because "both sides" feels true to you. It's not, though. Communists in Germany were the bitterest opponents of the Nazis, before the latter even had a strong party formation. And as the first line of the poem goes, Communists were the first ones "they" came for (although this is usually omitted in liberal retellings".

            If you've ever heard of Antonio Gramsci you know that imprisoning or killing communists was the first order of business under Mussolini.

            You can name any country that went fascist, and we can point out where the capitalists were easing it along and the communists were fighting it tooth and nail.

          • Facky [he/him,comrade/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            So that makes them entirely the US's fault?

            Entirely? No. But they do bear a lot of the burden.

          • GalaxyBrain [they/them]
            ·
            1 year ago

            Probably the Italians and Germans were a bit involved too, obviously ww2 is not entirely the fault of America but they were some giant fucking dominoes that fell.

      • RedDawn [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The US wasn’t even in on the treaty of Versailles if that’s what you’re talking about.

        The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America, to say they weren’t in on the treaty is true but it’s sleight of hand ignoring the role US played in dictating the economic direction of Europe through its role as creditor.

        Then, you had US industrialists funding and working with the Nazis as they rose to power.

        • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
          ·
          1 year ago

          The US however was very stringent in demanding repayment for all weapons it provided to UK and France, with interest, which necessitated those countries being harsh with Germany over war reparations in turn. German war reparations essentially all flowed to America

          This is an absurd take, regardless of its veracity (do you have a source?).

          The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US, and there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans. The UK and France were harsh with Germany because they hated and feared Germany and wanted revenge after World War 1.

          I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1. I'm not sure what your angle would be, but it would probably be more persuasive than your current argument 😉

          • RedDawn [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            The book Super Imperialism by Michael Hudson gets into this in depth with all the receipts. It was common practice in Europe that debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven, so it was actually breaking with all precedent that the US demanded full repayment with interest from their allies, and the circular flow of payments from US banks to postwar Germany, to the European allies and back to the US is clearly documented and laid out by Hudson in his book. This is an arrangement that was intentional and beneficial to the United States at the expense of Europe, until it came crashing down when the financial bubble it created popped and the Great Depression resulted.

            How can a take be “absurd regardless of its veracity”. Literally stating the truth is “absurd” if it reflects poorly on the United States? Do you find yourself overwhelmed living in such an absurd world (this one, where the United States is objectively a bad actor)?

            • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Thank you for providing a source.

              The reason I say it's absurd regardless of veracity is because it was not a valid geopolitical option. The US was still pursuing an isolationist foreign policy in the eyes of the public, it would have been political suicide to forgive those loans. The fact that we got involved at all was already shocking to Americans, if we then waived repayment it would have been a national outrage.

              Also, I that I highly doubt that the US decision to demand repayment of the loans is notably outside of the bounds of normal international conduct. I haven't read that book so I can't say for sure, but I have a hunch that you're making a false equivalency somewhere.

              debts incurred by wartime allies were forgiven

              Perhaps this is the reason, because the US was less of a wartime ally and more of a savior. The US was under absolutely no military threat, and thus viewing the loans as part of some kind of collective wartime struggle is quite the stretch.

              • RedDawn [he/him]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                The U.S wasn’t really implementing an isolationist policy, and never has since its inception. (Certainly not prior to WW1 when they had just finished going to war with Spain to take over its colonies, nor during nor after WW1 when they sent troops to a different Latin American country every single year to impose their will). It was just brutal realpolitik.

                “Isolationism” vs free trade and free markets, the US government and ruling class just does whatever benefits itself the most. Hence, other countries need to open up their markets to US exports post WW1 but the U.S. will simultaneously levy protectionist tariffs so that European goods can’t be competitive in the US market. Germany had no recourse but to borrow more money from US banks to pay their reparations, so that UK can turn around and give that money back to the US government. The only other way for these governments to meet their payments to the US was to impose austerity and wring the money out of their own domestic population (which they also did, also a contributing factor to the turmoil which eventually led to another world war).

                I don’t buy this “aw shucks we would love to forgive the debt or interest but we just can’t sell that to our domestic masses who care a lot about fiscal policy”. They did it because it directly benefited them (the ruling class and their state). They made massive profits off of the entire arrangement. Nothing mysterious about their motivations there. A better topic of discussion is would the European powers agreed to pay up, when that actually went against their own interests (look where it got them!)

          • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
            ·
            1 year ago

            I have absolutely no doubt that you would be even more outraged if the US had indeed forgiven its wartime loans to Britain and France after WW1.

            You'd be shocked to hear what this site's position is on most state loans in general, especially ones originating from Western countries.

              • infuziSporg [e/em/eir]
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We advocate for the forgiveness of all IMF loans, as they are primarily a way of exacting concessions against governments of underdeveloped countries, privatizing their industry for the profits of multinational companies and cementing theor economies as subordinate.

                One example is Haiti, where upon their independence France extorted them for tens of multiples of their GDP, purportedly for the "cost" incurred, and were in debt for 2 centuries.

                Rather than providing net aid, the quantity of money going from the Global South to the Global North, yearly, is over 10% of the GDP of Global South countries.

                We aren't too concerned with Britain and France getting repaid on any international debts when they're so far ahead, at other countries' expense, to begin with.

          • RedDawn [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            What the fuck does

            there is no reasonable argument that would have justified forgiving those loans

            even mean? How about “these countries were just destroyed by war and can’t reasonably be expected to pay”?

            Governments can and do forgive loans when they feel it’s appropriate. The U.S. made a conscious decision to wield its creditor status without mercy to further crush Europe and solidify its own position as top global power.

            The budgets of the French and British governments are not the responsibility of the US

            Yeah which is why they should have told US to stuff it with its ridiculous demands for payment lol