RNC chair says the D-Day anniversary should be about celebrating Trump/America

[IlluminatiRex]

Yes, it is a tu-quoque fallacy, which is, and I quote

appeal to hypocrisy, is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion

Also popularly known as "whataboutism" (which is a form of it), commonly used by the Soviets during the Cold War to distract from their own issues.

And I'm sorry, it wasn't Nuremberg, it was the trial of Nazi Klaus Barbie in the 1970s who went "but French Algeria! You can't put me on trial!".
The great thing is that I linked wikipedia and you can look at both of those links yourself and see why those bills were passed.

It was passed to expand participation of Indians in the government of India. The Act embodied the reforms recommended in the report of the Secretary of State for India, Edwin Montagu, and the Viceroy, Lord Chemlsford. The Act covered ten years, from 1919 to 1929. This Act represented the end of benevolent despotism and began genesis of responsible government in India.

1919 sure sounds "forced" or because India was "no longer profitable" based on the information available. /s

The 1935 article has some more details

The Indian contribution to the British war effort during the First World War meant that even the more conservative elements in the British political establishment felt the necessity of constitutional change, resulting in the Government of India Act 1919.

So while both acts were flawed, they were a critical step towards Indian independence and British recognition of such.

Also, I have the foresight to not talk about things I'm not versed in, I'm sure others on this site could take a lesson from that.
I know that how the passage of time works may be a bit difficult for someone with a kindergarten level grasp of history to understand, but please bear with me: Amritsar was in 1919 while the Nuremberg Trials were in 1945. Hell, even the Leipzeig War Crime Trials hadn't taken place yet. International Courts hadn't set that precedent yet. To top it off, Dyer's actions, for that period in Indian/British history and relations, were generally abnormal. British rule in India had been extremely harsh, but by 1919 things had been changing. By the 1930s, with rising independence movements, you do start to see clashes between the British government and native populations again - but that postdates Amritsar.

And no, you're supposed to see that he didn't get off scot-free. He had been born in India and had served in the Army since 1885. Having to give up where you were born and the career you've spent 40 years in is no small potatoes. He certainly could have been punished more, but to try and downplay the actual punishment he got is asinine. Especially when that wasn't the norm in 1919. Surely you can grasp that it's fairly presentist to be downplaying the significance of his punishment?
That's cool and all but the Soviet Union and Germany also weren't at war until, wait for it, 1941! Oops! I guess the Soviets weren't involved "late in the war" then either. And I mean I guess by your definition of WW2, 1939 can be considered "late" since the Sino-Japanese wars had been going on. Before that, the Soviets had been busy helping annex Poland and trying to do the same to Finland.

These are two of the most tonedeaf and historically illiterate posts I've ever had the pleasure of witnessing on this forum.

Wars require a few things to occur. Men, material, and more importantly, the logistics to move those men and material around. Now, I hope you know about the First World War, Le Grande Guerre. If you remember anything about it, you'll remember how destructive it was. There was a downturn in total population (less soldiers) and a very understandable unwillingness to start another World War. Millions died in the FWW. So much was destroyed. France hadn't really been able to truly recover from that. While the war generally never reach British shores, they too still felt the effects in similar ways to France. The US's single most deadly battle was during the FWW, and Wilson had planted ideas of self-determination, democracy, and using diplomacy as a way to avoid conflict in the future.

Beyond these more cultural ideas, these nations just weren't in a position to go to war. In terms of material they didn't have enough, nor did they have enough trained men. These things don't just exist, and in the wake of both post-FWW decreases in armament spending and the Great Depression meant that militaries just were not equipped to be on a war footing. They were not in a place in 1936 to go to war, and have it likely turn into a World War. They weren't ready and recognized that fact. They didn't want to put their nations through the horrors of another World War and wanted to find other means.

Also, you're trying to compare the US who between 1939-1941 was getting into a war footing re:manufacturing and was actually able to support the Allies materially, to 1936 when the Western powers were in no way in a war footing and not able to support other countries with military exports.

As to de Gaulle's advice: You don't just start fighting an offensive war. The British had to mobilize an expeditionary force, French doctrine was primarily defensive and relied on funneling the Germans through the Ardennes/Belgium (further north, was not thought that the Germans would be able to penetrate where they did), not to mention an overestimation of both German defences and strength. These combined, with the fog of war, make it difficult to make different decisions during the so called "Phoney War". It's not as if the Allies weren't trying for different strategies either: they were planning on invading Scandinavia to help Finland, but Finland sued for peace right before the invasion (due in part to a member of the Finnish government who hid the Allied plans and asked for an immediate surrender). Not to mention the Allies are working on rearming and retraining up to that point.

Please try to grasp even a sense of what military history is before you start rattling off about how they should have just gone to war in x year. Often times its culturally and physically not possible.

As to the next part, you still don't seem to understand what the passage of time is, and how you don't get to use later actions to criticize ones from 10, 20, 30, 40 years prior. That's not how that works and is essentially presentism.

Except it's literally the declaration of War against Germany. I know this whole "history" thing is hard for you but bear with me, what I used is called a primary source, a document from the period from a person about things going on. Now, you evaluate and criticize every document there is, that's a lot of what "doing history" is about. If you know anything about the historiography of WW2 and Chamberlain you'd know the winds are changing in regards to how he's viewed. Short version is that historians are starting to recognize that he was putting war off for as long as possible so the UK would be in a position to actually fight a war when it came. He recognized the threat of the Nazis. What I quoted were two different sections. First is the why they declared war, and that was Hitler's aggression. The next was the conclusion, a call to action even, where he lays out ideological reasons for the fight. My quotation here was that their responses were only "defensive" and not ideological at all - when it was the opposite. We see WW2 being couched in ideological terms from the literal get go. We're not looking at Chamberlin's actions from it, but from how he's presenting the war. And from Day 1 it's presented as an Ideaological conflict.

I'd expect a history major to have a more critical eye about this sort of thing.

I'd expect you to use read the words that are written, but apparently that's too much to ask since context and what I'm specifically replying to seem to continue to elude you. Do I need to remind you of what you said that I replied to with that?

so their motives were more defensive or about regaining sovereignty than ideological

But here we are, day 1, it's being couched in ideological terms.

I know the point is hard for you to grasp but it's recognizing the differences in why the Western Allies were fighting versus the Soviets. There is a marked difference, in that yes, the Western Allies were fighting to restore freedoms and democracy. The Soviets weren't. Recognizing that doesn't downplay the actions of the Soviets, but rather adds nuance to the conversation about why the war was fought and why it is remembered in the ways it is.

USA, GB, USSR and others together fought to destroy Nazism. A remarkable shared achievement, which we should remember.

But hey I guess nuance isn't a strong suit. The Western Allies in WW2 were not looking to conquer - the Soviets were. That's the difference, and keeping that in mind doesn't downplay their achievements.

[Mike Hunt]

What the fuck is going on with this Spanish Civil War shit? There's a reason the Allies didn't intervene: because if they intervened, it had the potential of completely destabilizing the French political scene to the point of civil war, the British press would've gone completely nuts and the armies would most likely be in a state of utter disarray. In hindsight, yes, Spain was a tragedy, but also keep in mind that Britain and France had just lost their richest coal mines, their most economically viable regions and virtually bankrupted themselves with expenditure to continue the war. Add on a state of economic malaise caused by the Depression and a relatively tranquil Europe that contributed to the rise of disarmament policies, and it's no wonder the Allies didn't intervene.

[AxeI]

I guess while we're speaking of fallacies I might as well point out that you're strawmanning my point. Pointing out that thinking that love for freedom and democracy was the main motivator for the western powers to go to war is naive is not at all the same thing as saying the USSR was A-OK and that it didn't commit numerous atrocities. You can say "our side's not perfect" without being an advocate for the opposition, you know.
Completely irrelevant, see above. Never claimed that the Soviets fought for freedom nor democracy. Good job proving that they didn't, I suppose?
It's La Grande Guerre*, FYI. See, I can behave like a petulant asshole as well, if you want. Maybe tone down the extreme passive-aggressiveness and focus on understanding my point in the first place, that would save us both time and energy.
So are you denying that the complete lack of intervention from the West in the Spanish civil war had anything to do with political matters, such as being reluctant to potentially help anarchist and communist factions if they provided material help to fight the fascists?

Are you claiming that the Allies remaining neutral in that situation was simply because they wanted to avoid conflict and the latter argument didn't play a role at all?
Thought presentism was the other way around. As in, you can't judge past events by today's standard. Not that you can't judge relatively recent events by older standards.

Rather disingenuous argument, in any case, considering the US didn't wait a decade to behave in an ideologically disputable way. Hiring Nazi scientists to help fight the Soviets can't really be considered ideologically driven, for instance.

And even if it were a valid point, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be reassured by knowing that the US got much worse, not better, at defending democratic principles following WWII.
This really didn't address my argument, though. A primary source isn't a non-biased source by design. Politicians say what needs to be said to motivate citizens into supporting their cause, not necessarily what their own motives to support said cause are. If we take an extreme example, propaganda material can be a primary source as well, doesn't mean it's representative of the motives of those who create it.
A claim which so far you haven't provided strong evidence for. A politician saying they fight for freedom isn't evidence that they actually are. Sure, it's probably part of the motivation, but to say that it's the only one is simplistic.

[Mike Hunt]

The problem is, that in the war motivations changed. The Allies fought initially yes with their main intention of self preservation, but as the war evolved and events began to transpire and news about German massacres (that the allies were aware of in 1941), people began to fervently, and genuinely believe that the struggle was one for freedom, it was fought for democracy, it was fought for liberty. And, well, it was. American liberalism, at least how FDR perceived it was genuinely an undeniable force for good that transformed the traditional world order into something more internationalist, (Bretton Woods etc). It may have been corrupted, but it is undeniable that the Allies of Britain, France to some extent and the USA all genuinely believed that this fight was a righteous one and a just one.

[AxeI]

I think the point of contention here is that I think constantly saying that the Allies fought for freedom and democracy kind of erases the more pragmatic reasons behind the involvement. You two point out that the reasons for not getting involved in the Spanish civil war were mainly practical, but that also means in return that the decision to go to war against the Axis stemmed in large part from practical reasons as well, self-preservation being one of them. Defending liberal principles may have played a role and increased in importance over the course of the war, but the depiction of the Allies as selfless nations ready to make the greatest sacrifices solely to defend the freedom of others is a romanticization.

[IlluminatiRex]

It was a main motivator which is what you're not grasping, and in the end that is what the Western Allies were pushing for.
What statement did I reply to, again?

Oh yeah, this one.

underplaying the role of USSR soldiers and their huge casualties in favor of depicting the commitment of the western world, and in particular the US despite the fact that they didn't get militarily involved until late in the war.

Considering that the US and Soviets were involved only about six months apart, you are wrong. And also you missed the point of those tweets I posted anyway..
Your incorrect assertions and points which hold water deserve nothing less.
It's clear you don't understand the real gravity of reasoning behind why certain actions were taken by the Western powers in the Spanish Civil War. I direct you living cornelius's post because it's clear you didn't read mine.
This is a very common interpretation of events, the Allies were in no position to intervene.
Reading comprehension: Essentially. Kind of a key modifier, but even then 20 years is just about a whole generation. You have different people in charge and different standards. A lot changes in 20 years. You are trying to use the standards of a different time to judge a prior one, making it essentially presentism.
Realpolitik goals sometimes take precedence, and in the case of the US immediately post WW2 for the US, that was the Soviets. And considering the Soviets ended up removing Nazis at gunpoint for the same reason, it's a moot point.
As per anytime in history it's generally mixed, just as before or after WW2. And it doesn't really matter since the context of this discussion was about during WW2 what the allies were doing.
Yes it does. Lay out sources for why WW2 was not being fought on ideological terms by the Western Allies and you'll have a point. You've provided nothing. Source up or shut up.
I'm going to let you in on a little secret: no primary or secondary or tertiary source is ever unbiased. everyone - whether its someone during an event, or historians after the fact, come at things from their own perspective. history is about understanding these and coming up with a narrative of the past. this is why two different historians can come to two different conclusions based off of the same material, it doesn't make either one wrong.
Why don't you provide some evidence to the contrary that the UK was getting involved for purely realpolitik reasons and not ideological then.

And furthermore, ideological reasons can grow and change during a war. The US Civil War is a big example of this, in that the Union didn't set out to end slavery, but by 1863 it had become a core aim. Ideological reasons can change. On top of that, Britain was aiding Poland. Poland at the time essentially had a one party dictatorship. However, that doesn't mean that the Nazis and Soviets should be able to just roll on in, start massacring people, and in the end makes their defense of Poland one where they're defending the Polish people from aggression and having their lives stripped from them by a fascist regime. And as the war went on, it became more and more ideological.

Source up, or drop your point. I used Chamberlain to illustrate the point. Chamberlain had signed agreements with Poland, Romania, and Greece should they be invaded by what would become the Axis. Is that not inherently idealological, trying to help defend (or fend off) Fascist nations who want to strip autonomy from other countries?
You have provided zero evidence and have consistently missed the points both of the tweets you initially responded to and my follow ups.

[Hail Satan]

I'm just going to point towards West and East Germany as an example. West Germany was a fairly free democratic nation, East Germany was a satellite state of the soviet union up until reunification.

[dcalde78]

I was watching some of the D-Day Remembrance stuff on the BBC the other day. They had a British veteran on and interviewed him. The presenter called him a hero to which he replied

"I'm not a hero, cause I'm here. All the heroes are dead."

I was on the verge of tears watching some of that coverage and reading some of the stories from veterans. The BBC actually featured a story from a veteran that lives somewhat near me, and reading his account of it was pretty interesting I have to say, one of the stand out lines being "we didn't have time to be scared".

Any politician who tries to make events like this about their President, or Prime Minister (or whatever applies to their country) is an abhorrent human being. This year was the last "big" anniversary that the veterans will make (given the next one will be the centenary). To try and make it about anything other than them is an absolute fucking disgrace.

[IlluminatiRex]

There's an American vet I just watched a video of from the other day who said the same thing. Damn thing tore me up to watch, he had to lower the ramp on his boat. Gut wrenching.

[Maestra Fénix]

Also, their armies were under prepared, and they kept "ignoring" Mussolini and Hitler since back at then they thought they would be content with Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia, so helping the republic would have "awaken" them.

Which at the end it was for nothing since the Axis invaded Poland, the Low Countries and even France, and they still under prepared ( although this last part comes from a failed gamble as it was thought that Hitler's army would strike at north, being actually a diversion of the main force attacking the Maginot line on the weakest point, so they pretty much opened a point on the defenses, ignored the hard points, isolated the armies at north, and pretty much traveled unopposed across the country ).

The point is that Realpolitik never works, seems to do at short term but at long term is disastrous.