Thread: Universal Peace and the Kellogg-Briand Pact

On August 27th, 1928 the French foreign minister Aristide Briand proposed to U.S. Secretary of State, Frank Kellogg that two nations make a pact to never go to war with each other. Kellogg responded by proposing the bill encompass all nations on Earth. The pact was initially signed by 15 countries and eventually by 60.

It was an idealistic proposal brought about after the world reeled back from the disillusioning Great Worrld War. It was like the world realized war was bad, and we shouldn't do it. The political activities between countries afterwards symbolize the very core reasons why war is caused in the first place.

Nationalists began to get a superiority complex. Other ideas, values and sources of loyalty outside their nation were considered inferior and not tolerated. IE fascists started to spring up.

Furthermore with communism growing in popularity in China the Japanese began to get worried about their investments in Manchuria so they annexed it, and when there was no international response they started a full on war with China to stop the communists from seizing their assets.

While that happened, the German superiority complex grew and they began liberating germanic people that were under slavic control. Furthermore, for some reason Hitler wanted Russia. To this day his goals are not completely understood but for some reason he had very greedy eyes for the USSR.

And so how do we really usher in an era of world peace? Obviously we can't all just agree to disarm and stop fighting.

If Hitler hadn't turned on the USSR they'd still be speaking German in Buckingham Palace today. He got greedy.

The way I see it right now, the world has three very large problems:
- dependency on fossil fuels that cause volatile market fluctuations
- the overpopulation of human beings
- the fundamental irreconcilable differences between Islam and Christianity

Oil will continue to rise in price as the supply dwindles. When the cost of oil reaches the price of renewable energies, everyone will jump ship over to wind/solar/hydro and oil will slowly crash. The world economy will become much more stable after our energy supplies come primarily from renewables. Population will begin to level off as food production drops as a result of the scarcity oil-based crop yield enhancers.

Then it's just down to a battle of the theologies that hopefully won't end in nuclear fire.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

If Hitler hadn't turned on the USSR they'd still be speaking German in Buckingham Palace today.

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

Cool deal. Thanks. It is just that when somebody brings up WWII, the first thing I think of is all of the shit my grandfathers went through when they fought in it.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

- the overpopulation of human beings

Population will begin to level off as food production drops as a result of the scarcity oil-based crop yield enhancers.

What overpopulation are you talking about?
And there will be no scarcity of yield enhancers because the base chemicals can be built up from substances other than oil, not to mention something else would be produced if it was cheaper or oil began to run out.

Originally Posted by adam has a dream

What overpopulation are you talking about?

You surely can't be under the impression that nearly 7 billion human beings (rising by tens of millions per year) is more than a little taxing on our planets ecosystem.

And at that, share your own thoughts on the original issue maybe.

Yeah, I'm conflicted with the United States standpoint on the war. My grandfather fought as a liaison between FDR and the French Underground and I feel like if Pearl Harbor would have happened maybe Germany would control the slavic world. His intentions were not world domination, he just wanted control over eastern europe, he thought the British could have the Indies, US got the Americas, Japan would rule Asia and Italy would rule Africa. He had a superiorty complex thinking some people were better and therefore should be in charge of other people.

So how do you deal with people with that mindset in the world? Everything seemed so beyond anyone's ability to control. The Germans wanted their pride back and felt deep resentment against slavic people, the Japanese wanted their investments to be protected, the Chinese wanted a government controlled by the working class. Hitler was not a black and white enemy, you know. Nobody knew people were being gassed to death, and the term fascism didn't have the stigma it does today. Hitler was just a motherfucker trying a very outrageous form of government, and mostly the American people wanted us to stay out of the war, sure they rooted for Britain but people were disillusioned by war and sick of fighting them. It's like how most of the country went against the Iraq war, granted in this situations we had inspectors there, there were no weapons, and the administration started making shit up so they could have their war. One could say the same thing happened in WW2, though, because we had the Japanese diplomatic code broken and we knew Pearl harbor was coming but FDR wanted to fight the Germans and Congress wouldn't allow it unless we were attacked.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Yeah, I'm conflicted with the United States standpoint on the war. My grandfather fought as a liaison between FDR and the French Underground and I feel like if Pearl Harbor would have happened maybe Germany would control the slavic world. His intentions were not world domination, he just wanted control over eastern europe, he thought the British could have the Indies, US got the Americas, Japan would rule Asia and Italy would rule Africa. He had a superiorty complex thinking some people were better and therefore should be in charge of other people.

So how do you deal with people with that mindset in the world? Everything seemed so beyond anyone's ability to control. The Germans wanted their pride back and felt deep resentment against slavic people, the Japanese wanted their investments to be protected, the Chinese wanted a government controlled by the working class. Hitler was not a black and white enemy, you know. Nobody knew people were being gassed to death, and the term fascism didn't have the stigma it does today. Hitler was just a motherfucker trying a very outrageous form of government, and mostly the American people wanted us to stay out of the war, sure they rooted for Britain but people were disillusioned by war and sick of fighting them. It's like how most of the country went against the Iraq war, granted in this situations we had inspectors there, there were no weapons, and the administration started making shit up so they could have their war. One could say the same thing happened in WW2, though, because we had the Japanese diplomatic code broken and we knew Pearl harbor was coming but FDR wanted to fight the Germans and Congress wouldn't allow it unless we were attacked.

Hitler definitely wanted world domination. Every dictator is going to go for that if he can. He was going to say what he had to say to keep people's guards down, but don't believe him. Without the Allied Powers, the Nazis would have ended up taking over the world and killing all non-whites, crippled, sick, and opposition. Dicatorships don't reach a point where they can have more power but still go, "Ah, that's all the power we want."

I see you want to argue about Iraq some more. We had intelligence from six governments and certain officials at the U.N. saying the opposite of what you said (That makes Bush a reporter and not a liar, but the people who say he is a liar on that ground are lying.), not finding WMD's does not prove their nonexistence any more than not finding Bin Laden proves his nonexistence, and the war is about much, much more than WMD's. We have been over this. If you want to get into this again, do it in an Iraq thread. We have about twenty of them now.

Originally Posted by Alextanium

You surely can't be under the impression that nearly 7 billion human beings (rising by tens of millions per year) is more than a little taxing on our planets ecosystem.

And at that, share your own thoughts on the original issue maybe.

I asked about overpopulation, not population. I do know how many people there are on earth, there's no need to reference that.
Humans have some impact on the earth's ecosystems, but you need to quantify it in order to suggest that we are overpopulating the earth.

I'm quite happy to share my thoughts on your asides if you're going to make them, at the moment I haven't got a strong opinion on the original issue.

I agree, overpopulation isn't real. Biology has a system of checks an balances in place. What's taxing to our planet is people aren't being responsible.

You forgot about the country that drove the Nazis out of Western Europe... and had nukes.

At best, they stop the war a couple of months. However, America just came in on the last second and started acting like they won it for everyone. Russia and England would have won it alone, actually just Russia.

If your plan is based on lighting war, then fighting Russia during the winter would be the biggest mistake ever. Hitler must have been on drugs(he actually was on drugs since he had parkinson's).

Also, America's use off the nukes was proberly a crime against humanity and militarily unnecessary.

This is a case where my brain ran faster than my ability to type, and I forgot to also add "it Japan hadn't brought the US into the war" etc.

We would have still had defeated Germany.

Saying, that Russia proberly won the war. Which, kind of gives Stalin some justification.

Originally Posted by wendylove

At best, they stop the war a couple of months. However, America just came in on the last second and started acting like they won it for everyone. Russia and England would have won it alone, actually just Russia.

If your plan is based on lighting war, then fighting Russia during the winter would be the biggest mistake ever. Hitler must have been on drugs(he actually was on drugs since he had parkinson's).

Also, America's use off the nukes was proberly a crime against humanity and militarily unnecessary.


We would have still had defeated Germany.

Saying, that Russia proberly won the war. Which, kind of gives Stalin some justification.

That is a lot of empty speculation. What is a fact is that we drove the Nazis out of Western Europe. Russia did not.

The nukes ended the war. Japan was not about to surrender, and probably would have otherwise been like North Vietnam and never surrendered. They were not even ready to surrender after the first nuking.

Nice treaty, but can be ignored.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is a lot of empty speculation. What is a fact is that we drove the Nazis out of Western Europe. Russia did not.

The nukes ended the war. Japan was not about to surrender, and probably would have otherwise been like North Vietnam and never surrendered. They were not even ready to surrender after the first nuking.

Soviet Union lost 23,100,000, U.S.A lost 418,500.

U.S.A came into the war long after it started.

Anyone read The Forgotten Soldier? Amazing book.
Anyways, it wasn't Russia that won the war. It was a combination of the Allies, Russia, unconventional behind the lines fighting, and the fact that Germany was fighting a two front war with more two nations that had more resources.

I'm sorry UM but your assumption that all dictators are trying to take over the world is by far the most asinine thing you have ever said. Nobody in WW2 wanted world domination. Stalin wasn't trying to dominate the world with the USSR, thr US is not trying to dominate the world right now, either.

Hitler only wanted control over the inferior people in what he considered his region of the world. Plus the Germans felt deep resentment against the slavic people over WW1.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

Soviet Union lost 23,100,000, U.S.A lost 418,500.

U.S.A came into the war long after it started.

We had a better military than the Soviet Union, and we did in fact drive the Nazis out of Western Europe. We started later than we should have, but we took care of Western Europe with the help of Britain. Do you give the U.S. credit for doing anything to stop the Nazis? Do you have any appreciation at all?

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I'm sorry UM but your assumption that all dictators are trying to take over the world is by far the most asinine thing you have ever said. Nobody in WW2 wanted world domination. Stalin wasn't trying to dominate the world with the USSR, thr US is not trying to dominate the world right now, either.

I am not saying that all dictators are trying to take over the world. Not all of them think they can. I said all dictators would do it if they could. Hitler actually had a good shot at it.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Hitler only wanted control over the inferior people in what he considered his region of the world. Plus the Germans felt deep resentment against the slavic people over WW1.

A dictator is as powerful as the world lets him be. Hitler took over countries one by one very quickly. He was a threat to world take over. If he thought he had reached a limit, he would have quit. However, he did not plan to just take over his region and then say, "Well, I could take over more countries, but I don't want to." That is not what dictators are. Dictators are power seeking machines. Just like fish will eat and eat until they have eaten so much that they die, dictators take every bit of power they have access to. They are not satisfied completely with something just because it is what they had their sights on for a while. The Nazi regime was a threat to the entire world.