8,452
edits
Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
Paradox-01 (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 227: | Line 227: | ||
:It can be assumed that the '''ideology-driven opposing views helped partly in keeping alive a feedback loop''' hindering to create better domestic policies. The well-intended but way naive left-ish narrative helped the extreme right in their doing which again causes the leftist to counteract to protect immigrants. The leftists shouldn't be blamed for having kickstarted the dynamic. There are historic pragmatic (realpolitisch) reasons for this development. The de-Nazification remained highly incomplete - therefore the need of a left-ish over-caring narrative. On one hand it was not possible to put large portions of Nazi perpetrator and accomplices into jail. There were simply too many of them. On the other hand post-war Europe lay in ashes. [[wp:Marshall_Plan|Germany was needed for the rebuild.]] And so USA connected this necessity with their own economic and political (anti-communistic) interests. | :It can be assumed that the '''ideology-driven opposing views helped partly in keeping alive a feedback loop''' hindering to create better domestic policies. The well-intended but way naive left-ish narrative helped the extreme right in their doing which again causes the leftist to counteract to protect immigrants. The leftists shouldn't be blamed for having kickstarted the dynamic. There are historic pragmatic (realpolitisch) reasons for this development. The de-Nazification remained highly incomplete - therefore the need of a left-ish over-caring narrative. On one hand it was not possible to put large portions of Nazi perpetrator and accomplices into jail. There were simply too many of them. On the other hand post-war Europe lay in ashes. [[wp:Marshall_Plan|Germany was needed for the rebuild.]] And so USA connected this necessity with their own economic and political (anti-communistic) interests. | ||
As for pacifism and appeasement policy - USA (and rest of NATO) often work hard on Germany so that it agrees to their ''invitations'' to wars and sanctions against rivals. This is partly a good thing as USA often act themselves strongly ideological just trying to protect their zone of influence. The collateral damage USA cause on their partners*- despite protestations to the contrary - is eventually secondary for them: ''America first''. | As for pacifism and appeasement policy - USA (and rest of NATO) often work hard on Germany so that it agrees to their ''invitations'' to wars and sanctions against rivals. This is partly a good thing as USA often act themselves strongly ideological just trying to protect their zone of influence. The collateral damage USA cause on their partners*- despite protestations to the contrary - is eventually secondary for them: ''America first''. -- The problem with USA is that they didn't had a war on their own ground [[wp:American_Revolutionary_War|in younger history]]. They don't know how total destruction feels like. This mixed with an self-image of superiority they too readily accept military interventions as solutions. | ||
: * '''For example Germany is meant to give up NS2 while the States are not willing to endanger their (even more sanctions worthy) oil imports from Russia. When Biden was asked about that in the presence of Olaf Scholz no answer was given.''' Also, Biden made clear that ultimately he is the one in control of the NS2 decision, not the chancellor - as if Germany is not fully sovereign - that's at least how many people understood his words. The media tended to speak more of helping out Olaf Scholz against an inconvenient question from a journalist. (Well, both views can be true, they don't really rule out each other.) | : * '''For example Germany is meant to give up NS2 while the States are not willing to endanger their (even more sanctions worthy) oil imports from Russia. When Biden was asked about that in the presence of Olaf Scholz no answer was given.''' Also, Biden made clear that ultimately he is the one in control of the NS2 decision, not the chancellor - as if Germany is not fully sovereign - that's at least how many people understood his words. The media tended to speak more of helping out Olaf Scholz against an inconvenient question from a journalist. (Well, both views can be true, they don't really rule out each other.) | ||