2 - Re Germany. The conditions enabling the rise of Hitler were actually created by WW1 victors who used their victory to humiliate Germany & bleed it dry. After WW2, we'd learned the lesson & helped it rebuild, with spectacularly good results. Ditto Japan.
3 - As a child, I spent time in postwar 1950s Germany. This was 12 years after WW2 and much of the place was still in ruins, but the greeting I got from people who were our sworn enemies 15 years earlier was universally warm and friendly.
4 - One thing I noticed was that none of the people I met thought of themselves as fascists or nazis, just ordinary germans who'd fought for their country. Very strange to sit there being welcomed and even being proudly shown a copy of Mein Kampf that Hitler had personally signed for my host! They were simply ordinary people who'd trusted their leader, and who'd been stupidly hammered by the Allies after WW1.
I couldn't agree more. Nobody ever asks how Hitler rose to power in Germany. They just dump all the evil on one man and move on — as if he came out of nowhere, a one-off monster. Nobody wants to admit how many people and decisions paved the road that led to him. They’d rather play the heroes who saved the world from him.
But war is always about politicians. They're the ones who decide who counts as a patriot and who gets branded a threat. People go off to fight — even die — thinking they're defending their country. But in reality, the enemies and allies were picked for them by power-hungry leaders. And every time, those leaders sell the same lie: that the other side started it, just like that — or that they just hate us for being who we are.
Look at America. Nobody questions why so many of its enemies today used to be close allies — or how U.S. interference helped create the Islamic Republic of Iran by backing a brutal regime that served American interests. Most Americans think Iran is just what happens when a country “chooses” to be Islamic — as if Iranians are naturally hostile. But if Iran gave up its nationalized oil, those same human rights violations would suddenly become “internal matters.” Washington would say, “We can’t interfere in their domestic politics.”
How often do we hear that line when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the human rights violations under its repressive regime?
Look at Russia. The blind loyalty to Putin says it all. His critics fall out of windows, get poisoned with novichok, or die in mysterious plane crashes — and somehow it’s always shrugged off. Meanwhile, he gets to decide who’s a friend and who’s a traitor, and millions just fall in line.
After the fall of communism, Russia had every chance to join the Western world. It shared European roots and a cultural backbone that wasn’t so different. But power doesn’t want equals. It wants enemies.
Mr Tanner (I assume it is your name), I encourage you to consider publishing a compilation of your essays, political, religious and socioeconomic. It would be a great resource for many people, including yours truly. Keep up the good work. 💪. And please let me know if/when you decide to publish, I will be among your first buyers. 😊
I’ve been thinking about it, but I haven’t yet decided whether to focus more on theology or politics. I know the two aren’t always separate, but if I go the theology route, I’d want to keep politics completely out of it and stick to scholarly studies. At the same time, I’m asking myself what kind of value it would actually add—and whether I can realistically make time for it.
Your work connects history, religion, politics and sociology. It reflects the multi-dimensional character of events and human life, in general. It is important you retain this interdisciplinary feature. A problem with many of our institutions of higher learning is narrow disciplinary focus and the lack of attention to how the different disciplines intersect in shaping human life and events. The recent recognition of interdisciplinary studies aims to overcome the traditional insularity among the disciplines.
You can publish your essays, as they are (or after a minor review), under a title like "Tanner's Essays on Religion, History and Politics." The essays are well-researched and accessible; at the same time, the notes provide (a) authenticity to the content and (b) leads for readers that wish to delve deeper.
4 points:
1 - an eye for an eye makes everyone blind.
2 - Re Germany. The conditions enabling the rise of Hitler were actually created by WW1 victors who used their victory to humiliate Germany & bleed it dry. After WW2, we'd learned the lesson & helped it rebuild, with spectacularly good results. Ditto Japan.
3 - As a child, I spent time in postwar 1950s Germany. This was 12 years after WW2 and much of the place was still in ruins, but the greeting I got from people who were our sworn enemies 15 years earlier was universally warm and friendly.
4 - One thing I noticed was that none of the people I met thought of themselves as fascists or nazis, just ordinary germans who'd fought for their country. Very strange to sit there being welcomed and even being proudly shown a copy of Mein Kampf that Hitler had personally signed for my host! They were simply ordinary people who'd trusted their leader, and who'd been stupidly hammered by the Allies after WW1.
I suppose all that rather proves your point.
Well said, as usual.
I couldn't agree more. Nobody ever asks how Hitler rose to power in Germany. They just dump all the evil on one man and move on — as if he came out of nowhere, a one-off monster. Nobody wants to admit how many people and decisions paved the road that led to him. They’d rather play the heroes who saved the world from him.
But war is always about politicians. They're the ones who decide who counts as a patriot and who gets branded a threat. People go off to fight — even die — thinking they're defending their country. But in reality, the enemies and allies were picked for them by power-hungry leaders. And every time, those leaders sell the same lie: that the other side started it, just like that — or that they just hate us for being who we are.
Look at America. Nobody questions why so many of its enemies today used to be close allies — or how U.S. interference helped create the Islamic Republic of Iran by backing a brutal regime that served American interests. Most Americans think Iran is just what happens when a country “chooses” to be Islamic — as if Iranians are naturally hostile. But if Iran gave up its nationalized oil, those same human rights violations would suddenly become “internal matters.” Washington would say, “We can’t interfere in their domestic politics.”
How often do we hear that line when it comes to Saudi Arabia and the human rights violations under its repressive regime?
Look at Russia. The blind loyalty to Putin says it all. His critics fall out of windows, get poisoned with novichok, or die in mysterious plane crashes — and somehow it’s always shrugged off. Meanwhile, he gets to decide who’s a friend and who’s a traitor, and millions just fall in line.
After the fall of communism, Russia had every chance to join the Western world. It shared European roots and a cultural backbone that wasn’t so different. But power doesn’t want equals. It wants enemies.
Mr Tanner (I assume it is your name), I encourage you to consider publishing a compilation of your essays, political, religious and socioeconomic. It would be a great resource for many people, including yours truly. Keep up the good work. 💪. And please let me know if/when you decide to publish, I will be among your first buyers. 😊
I’ve been thinking about it, but I haven’t yet decided whether to focus more on theology or politics. I know the two aren’t always separate, but if I go the theology route, I’d want to keep politics completely out of it and stick to scholarly studies. At the same time, I’m asking myself what kind of value it would actually add—and whether I can realistically make time for it.
Do you have any recommendations?
Good. Thoughts from my side.
Your work connects history, religion, politics and sociology. It reflects the multi-dimensional character of events and human life, in general. It is important you retain this interdisciplinary feature. A problem with many of our institutions of higher learning is narrow disciplinary focus and the lack of attention to how the different disciplines intersect in shaping human life and events. The recent recognition of interdisciplinary studies aims to overcome the traditional insularity among the disciplines.
You can publish your essays, as they are (or after a minor review), under a title like "Tanner's Essays on Religion, History and Politics." The essays are well-researched and accessible; at the same time, the notes provide (a) authenticity to the content and (b) leads for readers that wish to delve deeper.
Good luck 👍🙂
Thank you for the ideas and the encouragement. I’ll keep you posted on how things unfold.