How the World Sees England

[Mr. Tea]

Britain had a choice. Many in Chamberlain's cabinet were eager go cut a deal with Hitler, and even in Churchill's.

I was going to make this point but you've made it for me. Throughout the '30s many people in Britain, from the man on the Clapham omnibus up to (and especially) the government and the royal family, had a generally favourable view of Hitler. And even well into the war, there was still as a sense that Germany was basically a rival upstart that needed to be taught a lesson (again). A rival isn't someone ideologically opposed to you: he's someone who wants the same thing you want for yourself, for himself. I think it was only later that the Nazis became the peerless exemplar of human evil that they still are in the popular imagination.

And I don't think "We can't be all that bad, we fought the Nazis after all" is really much of an argument. The UK and, later, the USA deserve credit for preventing Hitler's domination of the Atlantic and freeing Western Europe after the Wehrmacht had already spent itself on the Eastern Front, sure, but if any one country should be regarded as Nazi Germany's nemesis, it's obviously the USSR. Does that diminish any of Stalin's unimaginable catalogue of crimes? Of course not.

 

[vimothy]

That if Britain truly faced up to its horrific past (as the Japanese did) then committing those foreign misadventures (enabled by nationalism) would be abhorrent to the population and therefore untenable for governments.

In what sense are Britain's foreign misadventures "enabled by nationalism"? Nationalism is not exactly a major force in Britain, even among "the people" (who, in any case, are less than enthusiastic about its foreign wars). Still less is it a force among its decision makers, the political and cultural elite, who are motivated by (if anything) the idea that the nation itself (as a unit of political organisation) is bad, since the nation gives rise to nationalism, and nationalism to Hitler.

 

[sufi]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pkj2m

In the 1950s, Britain looked back on its epic war effort in films such as The Dam Busters, The Cruel Sea and The Colditz Story. However, even at the time these productions were criticised for being class-bound and living in the past.
Journalist and historian Simon Heffer argues that these films have real cinematic merit and a genuine cultural importance, that they tell us something significant not only about the 1950s Britain from which they emerged but also about what it means to be British today.
His case is supported by interviews with stars including Virginia McKenna, Sylvia Syms and Sir Donald Sinden, with further contributions from directors Guy Hamilton (The Colditz Story) and Michael Anderson (The Dam Busters).

this was on late the other night, kind of grimly fascinating,

The narrator (clearly seduced by the whole phenomenon) takes us thru several "classic" ww2 films, made in the 50's when the people who fought were still around to approve their retcons which underlie much of postwar british jingoism

Most of all, very scary how familiar they all are, at a fairly subconscious level, having seen them all (mostly in institutional settings like school or on the bbc) as a kid, though i guess maybe less so to millennials?

 

[droid]

In what sense are Britain's foreign misadventures "enabled by nationalism"? Nationalism is not exactly a major force in Britain, even among "the people" (who, in any case, are less than enthusiastic about its foreign wars).

The sentiments underlying public support for military escapades are, in Britain (and probably most other places) invariably tied to idea of nationhood & the validation of a nations and a peoples place in the world. As well as achieving practical aims (occasionally) projections of military power are evidence of strength, an ability to dominate and influence. Be it under the guise of military humanism or through conflict with official enemies all but the most vociferous opposition crumbles under appeals to the flag, support of the troops and national unity once a campaign begins.

Nationalism is its own propaganda, providing both the justification and impetus for conflict.

None of this is news to anyone Im sure.

Still less is it a force among its decision makers, the political and cultural elite, who are motivated by (if anything) the idea that the nation itself (as a unit of political organisation) is bad, since the nation gives rise to nationalism, and nationalism to Hitler.

Elites may or may not believe in the nation (and I disagree with this assessment), but they certainly know how to exploit nationalism.

 

[vimothy]

A state might go to war for any number of reasons; the "validation of a nation's and a people's place in the world" seems pretty far down the list of motivating factors nowadays. (Western elites are more concerned with the issue of the non-existence of nations - how to promote the idea, how to more fully realise it, etc.)

When western states band together in coalitions to overthrow governments who are felt to have violated the international order in some fashion, it has nothing to do with fostering a sense of nationhood in their own people (which is not the same as "nationalism"), but to protect (however ineptly) a global system that most of their own people feel little to no loyalty to or affinity for.

 

[luka]

good to see you on board with the globalist NWO agenda vimothy. sort of talk that usually gets you labelled a conspiracy theorist

 

[vimothy]

Only if you use phrases like, "globalist NWO agenda". Otherwise, the idea that we have superseded the nation is not exactly radical.

 

[luka]

I'm on your side vim!

 

[luka]

Couldn't agree more

 

[vimothy]

Outrageous.

 

[droid]

A state might go to war for any number of reasons; the "validation of a nation's and a people's place in the world" seems pretty far down the list of motivating factors nowadays. (Western elites are more concerned with the issue of the non-existence of nations - how to promote the idea, how to more fully realise it, etc.)

When western states band together in coalitions to overthrow governments who are felt to have violated the international order in some fashion, it has nothing to do with fostering a sense of nationhood in their own people (which is not the same as "nationalism"), but to protect (however ineptly) a global system that most of their own people feel little to no loyalty to or affinity for.

Regardless of the true motivations of 'elites', what I said was that nationalism is an enabler. It is exploited and fostered in (often) the crudest terms to elicit consent from populations. In that sense elites ARE interested in fostering a sense of nationhood because it is a sentiment that is easily manipulated, hence the framing of issues as 'threats' to the nation, or questioning/confirming 'Britain's role on the world stage' or worries Britain is 'soft' on whatever enemy currently needs bombing.

Again, the phenomenon is so pervasive it seems idiotic to even point it out.

 

[rubberdingyrapids]

the elites may not be as interested in nationhood (not sure about that though), but they seem to do a good job of making sure those who are are responded to (or rather pretend it doesnt matter to them, and they are only talking about it to appease large swathes of the general public). nationhood seems like a dirtier concept but its still hugely emotive. even if all right thinking people like to act as if it doesnt have any sway anymore. dont see how anyone could deny this really, in light of the last 5 or so years of british politics

http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=18239

The referendum on UK membership seems like a concession to an older Britain that has not caught up with reality and is still coming to terms with post-imperial decline, which membership of Europe has always so acutely symbolized. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the capacity of populist Euroscepticism to exploit what remains a fundamental failure of the European Union, its inability to democratically recognise and represent those citizens who increasingly feel themselves left behind by European integration. While cultural and economic life-worlds Europeanise, political life seems resolutely stuck in out-dated conceptions of the people and the nation, reproducing fantasies of imagined communities, and providing no realistic challenge to supranational elitism.

 

[vimothy]

I don't think anyone is denying the idea that loyalty to particular nations is important in European politics. What I am denying is the idea that without it, we would not participate or even see wars like those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc, etc (although, droid is talking about nationalism, which to my mind is a specific political ideology, and not the same as the much more generic loyalty to a nation).

 

[Mr. Tea]

...the political and cultural elite, who are motivated by (if anything) the idea that the nation itself (as a unit of political organisation) is bad, since the nation gives rise to nationalism, and nationalism to Hitler.

Uh, if this means what I think it means, I have to ask if we've even been living in the same country for the last six years. Are you seriously saying the British establishment is keen to disavow or disown the very concept of the UK as an entity?

 

[droid]

I think it would be much, much more difficult to commit overt acts of aggression against other states without appeals to nationalism.

The point when patriotism crosses that line is ambiguous I agree.

 

[droid]

Uh, if this means what I think it means, I have to ask if we've even been living in the same country for the last six years. Are you seriously saying the British establishment is keen to disavow or disown the very concept of the UK as an entity?

I think Vim's schtick is that this is the clandestine aim of the post-westphalian liberal project.

 

[vimothy]

I think that without some form of political unity, warfare in general would be very difficult. But there's no reason why that community should centre around the nation (still less around nationalism). People are capable of going to war for all sorts of reasons, did so for many millennia before the advent of the nation, and will doubtless do so for many millennia after its disappearance.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I think Vim's schtick is that this is the clandestine aim of the post-westphalian liberal project.

Someone should tell David Cameron, I'd sure he'd find it fascinating.

 

[vimothy]

Perhaps, although it's possible that Cameron is already familiar with the "clandestine", "conspiracy theory" known as "globalisation".

 

[luka]

Lol sock it to em vim. They're living in the 19th century