this post was submitted on 28 Jun 2026
38 points (100.0% liked)

europe

2020 readers
30 users here now

Community for a certain asian peninsula.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

we're not asking a US treasury secretary for advice on how to do anti-imperialism, thats like asking a grain to become a heap--but he had a solid idea on destroying germany, which was just the right thing to do!

[–] ourtimewillcome@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

combatting the evils of capitalism by proposing to re-establish feudalism does not seem to be the right way to go about things, to me.

please consider familiarising yourself with the Soviet government's approach to the whole situation; especially since those were the people who, unlike americans, actually suffered from German fascism.

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

feudalism? the actual morgenthau plan was just a more detailed potsdam declaration with a proposal for political borders, folks sarcastically 'for' it and against it both exaggerate it, but it was basically just a few grains further than what was actually implemented.

its funny to say any problem pertaining to german industry or politics could've been solved by morgenthau, it's not true or so past the point of speculation that it's an absurd joke

[–] ourtimewillcome@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

socio-economic systems are determined by material conditions. by proposing to recreate pre-industrial society, the plan was effectively an attempt to destroy the conditions necessary for capitalism, while trying to recreate those needed for a feudal society.

proposal for political borders

the proposed borders would have been further east than those actually agreed upon after the war, thus ending up aiding german imperialism, not combatting it!

this also leads into the point that Romani and Sorbian people, as well as other national minorities, would have suffered just as much, if not more, from the plan as the perpetrator people! please keep in mind that virtually all german territory east of the elbe/labe/łobjo was stolen through settler colonialism from its original Slavic inhabitants. though in my experience, yanks usually aren't even aware of the non-germoid inhabitants of the region, and if they are, they don't tend to consider them human.

joke

it's always a joke unless people actually agree with it; then one is suddenly deathly serious. ))

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

by proposing to recreate pre-industrial society

there is no 'recreation' in the proposal. the removal of german industry would simply mean the capitalists and workers would be in agriculture and supporting light industries. many places in the world don't produce steel today but are still capitalist.

the morgenthau borders were less stringent in the east, he wasn't privy to the border shuffle with poland & ussr, poland getting west to modern borders was compensation for enforcing the curzon line on their east. but the plan's division of germany into 3-ruhr, south, prussia--and ceding saar to france are all elements that went heaps further than most proposals.

[–] ourtimewillcome@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

with the destruction/dismantling of key industrial capacity and the resulting push of employment and production toward farming and rural labor, landholding and rural authority would have quickly became more important than urban/industrial bourgeois power, recreating over time feudal relations of production and obligation.

your point about the Polish border, meanwhile, reads honestly like nothing but a load of german chauvinist rubbish. the recovered territories were exactly that: recovered, as they had formed part of the traditional Polish homeland and medieval Polish state, and were only lost later during different periods over the centuries. Germany had never had any right to hold them! What effectively happened after the war was that Poland abjured any claims on the territories it itself had unjustly acquired in the Soviet-Polish war, while finally regaining what had been stolen from it centuries earlier. thus, both wrongs had been righted at the same time.

furthermore, as i've stated previously, all "german" territory west of the elbe/Labe/Łobjo was ancestrally Slavic land that the germans had occupied and subjected to forced germanisation. if anything, germany's post-war eastern borders were too lenient and, in my opinion, should not have included Lusatia, etc.

you bringing up germany getting split up into several pieces is just ridiculous! as stated in the beginning, morgenthau explicitly called for the establishment of a US high commissioner as the main political control body over the entire area! do you seriously believe that the fucking americans would have used their even greater control over central and western europe to carry out honest denazification?? hell, even if they'd for some reasen ended up doing it, american power is never a good thing for socialism or anti-imperialism anywhere! how do i get this into peoples' heads, ffs?!

also, it's somewhat funny how you decided to completely ignore my point about national minorities. ironically, you and the germans seem to be in the same boat on this one, lmao

finally, ill ask you again to please educate yourself on the soviet government's approach to the german question, as those people (unlike yanks like mogenthau) actually experienced the horrors of fascist occupation, as well as it just being better to read communists instead of some dipshit in washington.

[–] AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net 2 points 2 days ago

with the destruction/dismantling of key industrial capacity and the resulting push of employment and production toward farming and rural labor, landholding and rural authority would have quickly became more important than urban/industrial bourgeois power, recreating over time feudal relations of production and obligation.

I don't find it reasonable that feudal relations would've been restored in the 1940s-1950s when capitalism has been well-established for centuries with imperialism as the current stage. Honestly, I can't even think of a country where feudal restoration is a thing outside of maybe going from Cromwell's Protectorate back to the UK or the Dutch Republic being replaced with the Kingdom of the Netherlands. And even those two are more about the capitalists of those countries taking a few steps back in the political arena while the mode of production they represent still marched onward to replace the feudal mode of production. The UK and the Netherlands are still kingdoms, yet no one seriously thinks they're feudal societies, and they haven't been feudal societies for centuries.

For the rest of your post, I broadly agree/have no comment.

[–] Euergetes@hexbear.net 1 points 2 days ago

look, i'm not obliged to respond to every point you make, i've got better things to do than wrestle in the mud with someone trying to wring arguments out of well meaning comrades making jokes.

i didn't reply to your argument about national minorities because it was completely unformed. how would it be worse for them, when there's no provisions about them in the plan we're talking about? was i supposed to guess? this isn't an effective, or kind way to communicate.

not interested in any grains i'd reap from carrying on with this.