Federation Foreign Policy

[Sci]

Germany and Japan were the aggressors and they paid the price, you can't bleat about it.

Am I the only one who can see the difference between punishing the military and political structure of a tyrannical nation and punishing civilians who didn't even live in a democratic society.

It's fair enough to argue that there should be distinctions made between civilians and the military and political leadership, and it's fair enough to argue that ethnic Germans should not have been forced out of countries that the Third Reich had previously occupied if they had been born there.

But let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were innocent in all this, either. Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power democratically -- they came in 2nd in the 1930 election and won the July 1932, November 1932, and March 1933 elections all before the Nazi Party had total power, and enjoyed a great deal of popularity even during the war. Even when the average German felt betrayed by the Nazi regime, a common saying was, "If only the Führer knew!"

So let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were helpless or victimized by the Nazis. Their approval and choice was how the Nazis came into power, and their approval was an important part of how the Third Reich enacted its murderous intent. That doesn't mean every individual German was responsible -- but when we're talking about the population of the German Reich as a whole, it becomes absurd to try to imply that Hitler and his lieutenants were solely responsible for the Third Reich and that the people as a whole had nothing to do with it.

Hitler came into power with the consent of the people of the German Reich. We can't forget that.

 

[stonester1]

Sir, did it ever occur to you that--assuming, of course, you accusation is valid--that he actually regrets what happened?

No. All we have to go by is his rhetoric. I've yet to hear anything regretful in his rhetoric about the Iraq War.

BTW...for all the fun you seem to have bashing Rush for Undeniable Truth number six, calling him a "beligerent chickenhawk"...I refer you to number nineteen:

War itself is an atrocity.

But for all his gung ho-ness about it, that rule number 19 rings a little hollow.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Germany and Japan were the aggressors and they paid the price, you can't bleat about it.

Am I the only one who can see the difference between punishing the military and political structure of a tyrannical nation and punishing civilians who didn't even live in a democratic society.

It's fair enough to argue that there should be distinctions made between civilians and the military and political leadership, and it's fair enough to argue that ethnic Germans should not have been forced out of countries that the Third Reich had previously occupied if they had been born there.

But let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were innocent in all this, either. Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power democratically -- they came in 2nd in the 1930 election and won the July 1932, November 1932, and March 1933 elections all before the Nazi Party had total power, and enjoyed a great deal of popularity even during the war. Even when the average German felt betrayed by the Nazi regime, a common saying was, "If only the Führer knew!"

So let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were helpless or victimized by the Nazis. Their approval and choice was how the Nazis came into power, and their approval was an important part of how the Third Reich enacted its murderous intent. That doesn't mean every individual German was responsible -- but when we're talking about the population of the German Reich as a whole, it becomes absurd to try to imply that Hitler and his lieutenants were solely responsible for the Third Reich and that the people as a whole had nothing to do with it.

Hitler came into power with the consent of the people of the German Reich. We can't forget that.

Agreed. And indeed, I would say the civilians had an even greater guilt, for the simple reason that, in the end, they are responsible for the actions of the military. As Sun Tzu Sad:

"The ordinary rule for the use of military force is that the military command to recieve orders from the civilian authorities..."

And:

"So there are three ways in which a civil leadership causes the miliary trouble.

"When a civil leadership unaware of the facts tells its armies to advance when it should not, or tell its armies to retreat when it should not, this is called tying up the armies.

"When the civil leadership is ignorant of military affairs but shares equally in the government of the armies, the soldiers get confused.

"When the civil leadership is ignorant of military maneuvers but shares equally in the command of the armies, the soldiers hesitate."

The guilt, then, is in the civilians neglecting to inform themselves with the necessary information.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Sir, did it ever occur to you that--assuming, of course, you accusation is valid--that he actually regrets what happened?

No. All we have to go by is his rhetoric. I've yet to hear anything regretful in his rhetoric about the Iraq War.

I was referring, sir, to your accusations about his being an alleged Vietnam draft-dodger. As you know.

 

[stonester1]

Sir, did it ever occur to you that--assuming, of course, you accusation is valid--that he actually regrets what happened?

No. All we have to go by is his rhetoric. I've yet to hear anything regretful in his rhetoric about the Iraq War.

I was referring, sir, to your accusations about his being an alleged Vietnam draft-dodger. As you know.

He doesn't spend much time on that, either. He's more willing to use that status in others as that rhetorical sledge hammer, as I referred to before.

If he had any real humility, he would put that sledgehammer down and talk about that issue like an adult, especially one not qualified to be throwing stones in a glass house.

 

[T'Girl]

And you damn right I want our leaders to feel reluctant about the use of force. War is the way it is, and you better be one THOUSAND percent sure it is the correct course of action before you send good men and women to die. These are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends who won't be returning to their loved ones.

But no leader exists in an environment of total information. You make decision based on what you have in front of you, you can pause and wait for more info to come in, but at some point you make the decision to make a decision. Warfare is just one of many tools in the leader's drawer.

War is not a football game. It is the most serious of business. When we talk about it, it should not be in the tone of a pep rally.

No, war is in fact a game. It it brinkmanship, bluff, deception and the demonstration. It's certainly the epitome of game theory, in which one's success in making correct choices depends on the unknown choices of others. There are people who cheer when you win, others cheer as you lose.

Once again--no one is advocating full-scale war.
What we are advocating is the use of force to invariably defend the citizens within the border of a power.

In 233 years America has fought several dozens of wars (depending on what you call "war"), while some have been huge affairs, most have been small or even tiny, involving hundreds of troops over a brief period of time. Going to war doesn't automatically mean total war. TOS showed a series of boarder skirmishes which debatably prevented large conflicts from occurring while still holding Federation territory. The Cardasian war and the episode Errand of Mercy war were medium large, only the Dominion war was truly huge in size.

 

[USS KG5]

our [/B]fault when you had nothing to do with. Ethnic cleansing for what ever reason is a war crime. It was a crime before WWII and became an even bigger one after it. That kind of reasoning doesn't fly.

Yes it does. I'm sorry that so much suffering was caused but given the relative fault for the war it should rightly be Germany that suffered when there was a choice at the end of WW2, the whole world was drawn into conflict by Germany, Germany paid a big price for that, and deserved to.

hmm? Germany since it was united became was always an economic giant. In fact that is probably what saved it from ending up the way the Allies probably wanted it. Factories were taken apart. The french were given a chance to steal a part of Germany and were given competitive advantage. It was only after they realised that they couldn't replace the position Germany had before the war when the restrictions were relaxed. Oh and also the fact that the Cold War started and both side tried to impress the Germans. Just imagine what would have happened otherwise.

Well the western powers would always have rebuilt Germany, though possibly not quite so enthusastically if not for the presence of an aggressive USSR. Your other points are fairly spurious and very debatable. The French were victorious so they got Alsace, permanently. Again you have to ask what exactly you thought would happen after Germany was fought to a standstill, a quick few beers and everything forgotten? Not likely.

Am I the only one who can see the difference between punishing the military and political structure of a tyrannical nation and punishing civilians who didn't even live in a democratic society.

Yes - you are. Germans cannot and never should be allowed to avoid a collective guilt for their participation in the Nazi regime, its aggressive warfare and its genocide. A few very brave Germans opposed it but most went along with it. A strong resistance by the German people could have stopped it all, but a snake-oil salesman came along and said "all this is the Jews fault, and I will put us where we should be" and Germany went along with it.

WW2 was a TOTAL war, to be honest I find the attitude that it was the NAZIS not the GERMANS responsible extremely distasteful.

I'm pretty sure it's easy for you to write this has we live in a comfortable modern day world of the European Union. But if we had people dying right now across the channel? Would you have this smug opinion and congratulate the PM?

Who is we in this context?

If current day Germany was suffering, I'd say Britain, the USA and France as friends and allies should help all they can. This is in no way a concession to my attitude over WW2.

We had to flatten cities, kill millions and mobilise our entire populations to put Germany down in WW2, so aggressive and powerful were its assaults on the rest of the world. Any price paid after that, while individually tragic, was overall just given the crimes Germany as a nation committed.

 

[stonester1]

[
But no leader exists in an environment of total information. You make decision based on what you have in front of you, you can pause and wait for more info to come in, but at some point you make the decision to make a decision. Warfare is just one of many tools in the leader's drawer.

Yes, it is. But when your favorite tool is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.

Or that the use of this tool is highly dependent on the intelligence, judgement, wisdom and honesty/integrity of those making decisions.

If they lack the above, they get people killed for nothing.

No, war is in fact a game. It it brinkmanship, bluff, deception and the demonstration. It's certainly the epitome of game theory, in which one's success in making correct choices depends on the unknown choices of others. There are people who cheer when you win, others cheer as you lose.

Nobody should be cheering, period. If they would stop and consider the somber, sober, serious nature of what was occuring, REALLY consider it, they would at least take a moment for silence and reflection.

War is NOT a game.

Not really.

Especially not to those who actually have to do the fighting.

I've spent a Christmas day in a foxhole. Other experiences.

Trust me...it's no game.

 

[Training]

But let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were innocent in all this, either. Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power democratically -- they came in 2nd in the 1930 election and won the July 1932, November 1932, and March 1933 elections all before the Nazi Party had total power, and enjoyed a great deal of popularity even during the war. Even when the average German felt betrayed by the Nazi regime, a common saying was, "If only the Führer knew!"

So let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were helpless or victimized by the Nazis. Their approval and choice was how the Nazis came into power, and their approval was an important part of how the Third Reich enacted its murderous intent. That doesn't mean every individual German was responsible -- but when we're talking about the population of the German Reich as a whole, it becomes absurd to try to imply that Hitler and his lieutenants were solely responsible for the Third Reich and that the people as a whole had nothing to do with it.

Hitler came into power with the consent of the people of the German Reich. We can't forget that.

It's well documented that after Hitler came to power he reduced what little democracy there was in German society. Even so support for a political part has nothing to do with the actions the said political leaders commit. Especially considering the fact that Hitler was voted into office only once. He never had any mid term elections. There was no way for him to be outvoted.

Oh and the fact that the Nazi party kept most of their activities secret. If the entire 60 million strong nation knew of his actions other then war you may have had a fair assessment. However reality dictates here.

and it's fair enough to argue that ethnic Germans should not have been forced out of countries that the Third Reich had previously occupied if they had been born there.

I'm talking about Germans expelled from GERMANY. Germany has it existed after 1914. German terrirorties that no one could claim belonged to them because the vast majority of the people living there were Germans and have been so for several hundred years.

The guilt, then, is in the civilians neglecting to inform themselves with the necessary information.

All your quotes are about civilian leadership. Which at that time were the Nazi party who didn't answer to the civilian society. Those quotes are good for a society like America during the Iraq war but for a dictatorship it's a moot point.

Yes it does. I'm sorry that so much suffering was caused but given the relative fault for the war it should rightly be Germany that suffered when there was a choice at the end of WW2, the whole world was drawn into conflict by Germany, Germany paid a big price for that, and deserved to.

What does expelling civilians and causing a refugee crisis solve? In fact the only reason for the expulsion was because the USSR (who invaded Poland a few weeks after the Germans) wanted to keep the territory it took from Poland and gain a strategic port. It served no benefit and made the jobs of the Allies even harder in occupying Germany. Less agriculture land,less industrial land and more people.

The only reason I can think of is that they didn't want to piss of the USSR while they needed them and when they didn't made a fuss of it. In fact. Until Germany signed an agreement that they wouldn't ask for the territory back. It was the positions of the Western Allies that the expulsion was temporary. Which is why I rate Churchill so low. How the hell did they expect to kick 16 million people out of there homes,traumatize them and then convince the Eastern Europeans to give back what they took?

Well the western powers would always have rebuilt Germany, though possibly not quite so enthusastically if not for the presence of an aggressive USSR. Your other points are fairly spurious and very debatable. The French were victorious so they got Alsace, permanently. Again you have to ask what exactly you thought would happen after Germany was fought to a standstill, a quick few beers and everything forgotten? Not likely.

It wasn't just the Alsace was it? They tried to took over Saar. Which they failed and then try made an agreement to give themselves an competitive advantage which if my memory serves didn't help them much.

What I would expect when it comes to occupying Germany is simply demilitarizing and denazifying it without expelling people from their homes,dismantling civilian industries. Making sure that the German economy regrew and paid reparation over time.


It is possible to occupy a nation and denazify it without mass rapes you know. Just look at Iraq. How many industries where shutdown and moved to Kuwait?

Yes - you are. Germans cannot and never should be allowed to avoid a collective guilt for their participation in the Nazi regime, its aggressive warfare and its genocide. A few very brave Germans opposed it but most went along with it. A strong resistance by the German people could have stopped it all, but a snake-oil salesman came along and said "all this is the Jews fault, and I will put us where we should be" and Germany went along with it.

WW2 was a TOTAL war, to be honest I find the attitude that it was the NAZIS not the GERMANS responsible extremely distasteful.

Well I find it offensive that people should be punished for something they didn't do. Supporting something is different from enabling and actively do it. While I don't really care much if Germans feel guilty or not. One can't say that the civilians should be punished.

In fact your position right now is illegal under UN rules. I'm glad that Coalition never took your advice when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Who is we in this context?

Europeans living in a Post WW2 EU world run by the wallet of the Germans,the spur-on-the-moment French and the euroscepticism of the British.

http://www.slate.com/id/3026/

 

[Sci]

But let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were innocent in all this, either. Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power democratically -- they came in 2nd in the 1930 election and won the July 1932, November 1932, and March 1933 elections all before the Nazi Party had total power, and enjoyed a great deal of popularity even during the war. Even when the average German felt betrayed by the Nazi regime, a common saying was, "If only the Führer knew!"

So let's not sit here and pretend that the German people were helpless or victimized by the Nazis. Their approval and choice was how the Nazis came into power, and their approval was an important part of how the Third Reich enacted its murderous intent. That doesn't mean every individual German was responsible -- but when we're talking about the population of the German Reich as a whole, it becomes absurd to try to imply that Hitler and his lieutenants were solely responsible for the Third Reich and that the people as a whole had nothing to do with it.

Hitler came into power with the consent of the people of the German Reich. We can't forget that.

It's well documented that after Hitler came to power he reduced what little democracy there was in German society.

Yes. It's also well-documented that he initially gained power through democratic means, by the Nazi Party's winning several successive elections.

Even so support for a political part has nothing to do with the actions the said political leaders commit.

Oh, yes it does. You cannot reasonably say that a populace that elects a leader and approves of him, and continues to approve of him when he engages in human rights abuses, does not share some responsibility for that leader's actions.

Now, I'm not saying that they're all murderers. I'm not saying they all knew everything that was happening. I'm not saying that the German people should be eternally tainted by the actions of their ancestors. I'm not saying it was right to engage in collective punishment against the Germans after WW2.

But by the same token, stop trying to pretend that the German people of the World War II era have clean hands. They were a part of it, too, and every German who was an adult and supported the Nazi regime shares in some measure of guilt.

 

[USS KG5]

Well I find it offensive that people should be punished for something they didn't do. Supporting something is different from enabling and actively do it. While I don't really care much if Germans feel guilty or not. One can't say that the civilians should be punished.

I'm not going to waste much more time on this line of opinion you have, as I consider it pure horse shit. As neither of us are likely to convince the other I will simply re-state my point: -

The entire population of Germany was involved in the prosecution of the aggressive, brutal travesty that was WW2 and the genocide that accompanied the Nazi regime, simply going to work is support in a total war.

The entire population of Germany was responsible for the actions of its government.

The entire population of Germany justly paid a heavy price for their actions.

Germany has now through 70 years of good behaviour regained admittance to the human race. However attitudes such as yours are just poor and contemptable excuses for a brutal, disgusting period in German history, one which Germany can be forgiven for, but can never be forgotten.

Now I'm out.

 

[siskokid888]

I think your last point is obvious vis a vis the Federation. You all seem to think that these "hostile powers" think that Federation conquest would be a cakewalk. On the contrary, the Fed is pretty formidible and has kicked ass time and again. The Fed is aware of this, as is their adversaries. The adversaries test the waters, the Fed first tries diplomacy to avoid the loss of billions of lives in a full scale war. The Fed has shown the willingness to go the the mat, they just are trying to do the "humane" thing and avoid the horrors of war. And that may mean occasionally giving in (something we Americans, with our ridiculous egos, can't grasp). But there is a line that can't be crossed, and both sides know this.

And where do you draw the line, exactly?

You say the Federation is pretty formidible. And yet their adversaries have an annoying tendency to attack over and over--in the hopes that they will get what they want at the negotiation table.

When the Federation allows this to continue, this simply serves as an incentive for adversaried to continue--and, indeed, for new adversaries to try their own hand at said game.

Well said.

And, siskokid888, what is the point you're trying to make? That if the Cardassians attacked Minos Korva the Federation should just say something like this to the colonists there....?

"Oh well, you're just a 20,000 person colony. Your lives aren't as valuable as those other Federation citizens who would be killed liberating you. We're not going to risk our lives for your protection. Have fun living under Cardassian occupation. We all know the Bajorans love it so much."

It would be something that an organization like the Fed would constantly have to weigh - what is worth going to war and losing billions of lives over? I just watched DS9's "The Collaborater", which showed that Kai Opaka turned her own son over to save thousands of others. This is the same principal on a smaller scale. The Fed would have to do this cost and effect comaprison on a "galactic" scale. I also remember something in the Trek universe that said the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Rush Limborg]

The problem with that line of reasoning IS:

If the UFP had that kind of attitude towards its members...it would discourage new membership. If potential newcomers got the idea that "oh, we won't do whatever we can to keep you safe, if it means war", do you really think they'll buy that?

 

[Anwar]

Except it would be "If you're attacked, we'll protect you and retake your planet." instead of "If anyone in the Federation is attacked, we'll begin a war and KILL BILLIONS!!!!"

 

[Rush Limborg]

Well, it's all about deterrence.

What is the greatest incentive not to commit a crime? The fear of punishment.

If foreign powers know that their would be to pay should they attack...I should think that would be a deterrance.

 

[Sci]

The problem with that line of reasoning IS:

If the UFP had that kind of attitude towards its members...it would discourage new membership. If potential newcomers got the idea that "oh, we won't do whatever we can to keep you safe, if it means war", do you really think they'll buy that?

Dude, doing whatever they can can to protect a Federation Member World is a bad thing. "Whatever they can" encompasses genocide, since Federation starships are capable of turning M-Class planets into hunks of glass. Should the Federation have committed genocide against the Klingons by destroying Qo'noS in the name of doing "whatever they can?"

You don't do "whatever you can." You do whatever is proportional. That means, if it's a small colony, re-capture the system and make sure that it can't be invaded again. If it's a larger system, or if it's a series of small systems, that have been invaded, you re-capture them and bring the fighting to the enemy in order to deter this much more-committed-to-the-fight enemy. But you don't do "whatever" you can.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Once again, Sci, I ask you: how "small" is too small?

 

[Sci]

Once again, Sci, I ask you: how "small" is too small?

As I have said numerous times in this thread, that would depend upon the circumstances.

In the general scenario presented -- that of a small Federation colony in a system located the edge of the Federation border being invaded, and of this invasion occurring in isolation -- I have said, time and again, that the proportional response is to re-capture the system and to then beef up defenses along the border to prevent such an invasion from happening again.

 

[David cgc]

Once again, Sci, I ask you: how "small" is too small?

How large is too large?

So, the Cardassians invade Minos Korva. The fact that you're having this discussion at all says you think simply retaking the system is an insufficient response, so what should the Federation do as a punitive measure? Annex Bajor? How about going all the way to Chin'toka? Maybe they should invade Cardassia Prime and execute the leaders of the Union and display their bodies publicly as a warning to others?

How much does the Federation have to do to obtain satisfaction for the loss of one colony?

 

[Rush Limborg]

Here's how I would do it:

The first time an enemy attacks a colony--and, heaven forbid, conquers it, re-capture it--and demand an official apology and reperation payments for the purpose of rebuilding said colony. Refusal constitutes an act of war.

I would also include an ultimatum: If said enemy power EVER attacks the Federation again...EVER...regardless of size...Starfleet would strike back with DOUBLE the force inflicted by the enemy.