4 ms·

You may be wrong about the UK, which fought the war as the British Empire. I believe more than half the pilots that won the Battle of Britain came from the Comm

by dash2 6y ago

You may be wrong about the UK, which fought the war as the British Empire. I believe more than half the pilots that won the Battle of Britain came from the Commonwealth. The Battle of Monte Cassino included New Zealanders and Nepalis.

ALittleLight 6y ago
Fair point. I think I'm still right about the US though.
- Apocryphon 6y ago
  Regardless of racial diversity, WWII-era U.S. had far more cultural and ethnic diversity than Germany. The Soviet Union, with its own hodgepodge of non-Russian minorities, was also quite diverse.
  - ALittleLight 6y ago
    The quote I excerpted is clearly referring to racial diversity.
    - Apocryphon 6y ago
      Did diversity defeat the Axis powers? No, the industrial might of the two-oceans-guarded U.S. and the raw manpower of the Soviet Union did, among other factors, such as the atomic bomb. The author is putting the cart before the horse by attributing the diversity as the distinction that delivered victory to the Allies. But it's obviously in service of a rhetorical point, as inaccurate as it might have been- Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was big on homogeneity and supremacy, and they lost; the U.S. is not, and we won. Make a pedantic point, get pedantic replies. I think it's arguable that the racial diversity of the modern U.S. was a natural outgrowth of the cultural/ethnic diversity of WWII era U.S.; by then, this country was already a melting pot. So there is some truth, however garbled, to the article's point. And it was a minor rhetorical observation in any case.
      - ALittleLight 6y ago
        I took a paragraph from the article and said why I thought it was wrong. I don't think it's pedantry to point out that the author's claim is wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong in some technical, hair splitting sense, but just completely wrong. The author observes modern diversity and suggests it helped in a past struggle, but the modern diversity actually didn't exist then. If it's pedantry to point out this is wrong, then that's a greater criticism of the article because the author is including a paragraph that is so unimportant it apparently doesn't matter if it's true or false. You mention that Nazi Germany was big on supremacy and homogeneity and the US isn't, but I think that's the same mistake I originally pointed out. You are conflating modern ideals (don't care about homogeneity or [racial] supremacy) with past ideals. America of the pre-war was actually concerned with those things. I could point to the power of the Klu Klux Klan or the fact that the Nazi eugenics movement was influenced by the American eugenics movement. It's not the case that "We" won the second world war. Our forbears did, and in some ways they were similar to us and in some different. My overarching point is that it doesn't really make sense to use the second world war as an example of the strength of modern diversity because modern diversity wasn't in place at that time.
        Apocryphon 6y ago
        It might not be equivalent to modern day diversity, but the Allies- at least the liberal democratic nations- clearly represented a certain level of tolerance of diversity whether nationality or ideological, contrasted with the totalitarianism of the Axis states. Consider that the cracking of the Enigma code was somewhat of a pan-European project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070300 As I stated, the author is putting the cart before the horse in attributing the Allies’ diversity as part of the reason for why they won. But he isn’t completely far off in suggesting the Allies represented more open societies, the types that would lead to racial diversity later on. Precursors to modern diversity, if you will- at least closer to it than the fascist states were. Looking back at your earlier point about China, it’s interesting to note that despite being 92% Han, that civilization has always been not entirely homogenous- indeed the Republic of China which was the major ally in WWII Asia portrayed itself as a multiethnic state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union Was Nationalist China a liberal democracy with modern conceptions of equality, let alone diversity? Of course not. But they were closer to it than Showa Japan, at least.
    - jacobolus 6y ago
      In pre-WWII USA, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. were not considered part of the dominant "white" "American" group. Likewise Jews. (Not to mention Latinos, Chinese, Blacks, ...) A very significant proportion of the US military in WWII (maybe a third? I don't know the precise numbers) came from socially marginalized minority groups. The war substantially changed the society: Common experience in the armed forces, people moving around the country after being uprooted by the war, subsidized college via the GI bill, etc. But even so, many people were scandalized at the idea of a Catholic president even in the 1960s.
  - dash2 6y ago
    I wonder if that's true and how you would measure it. Germany, like the US, was an alliance of different states. If you read Buddenbrooks, there's lots of ethnic humour about the Bavarians and their strange accents. I don't think Germany had the same level of mass immigration - until the 1920s and 30s, when it led to the anti-semitic backlash. The more important point is just that the Nazis were explicit, avowed racists, while the US and Britain had a stronger ideology of racial equality and tolerance - though there was still plenty of racism in both those countries.
arethuza 6y ago
About a fifth of Battle of Britain pilots came from outside the UK - from a very wide range of countries. Worth noting the most successful squadron was Polish and the most successful individual pilot, Josef František, was Czech: https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/history-of-the-battle-of-britain/battle-of-the-nations.aspx https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/his... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek

by dash2 6y ago

ALittleLight 6y ago

Fair point. I think I'm still right about the US though.

Apocryphon 6y ago
Regardless of racial diversity, WWII-era U.S. had far more cultural and ethnic diversity than Germany. The Soviet Union, with its own hodgepodge of non-Russian minorities, was also quite diverse.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The quote I excerpted is clearly referring to racial diversity.
  - Apocryphon 6y ago
    Did diversity defeat the Axis powers? No, the industrial might of the two-oceans-guarded U.S. and the raw manpower of the Soviet Union did, among other factors, such as the atomic bomb. The author is putting the cart before the horse by attributing the diversity as the distinction that delivered victory to the Allies. But it's obviously in service of a rhetorical point, as inaccurate as it might have been- Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was big on homogeneity and supremacy, and they lost; the U.S. is not, and we won. Make a pedantic point, get pedantic replies. I think it's arguable that the racial diversity of the modern U.S. was a natural outgrowth of the cultural/ethnic diversity of WWII era U.S.; by then, this country was already a melting pot. So there is some truth, however garbled, to the article's point. And it was a minor rhetorical observation in any case.
    - ALittleLight 6y ago
      I took a paragraph from the article and said why I thought it was wrong. I don't think it's pedantry to point out that the author's claim is wrong. I'm not saying it's wrong in some technical, hair splitting sense, but just completely wrong. The author observes modern diversity and suggests it helped in a past struggle, but the modern diversity actually didn't exist then. If it's pedantry to point out this is wrong, then that's a greater criticism of the article because the author is including a paragraph that is so unimportant it apparently doesn't matter if it's true or false. You mention that Nazi Germany was big on supremacy and homogeneity and the US isn't, but I think that's the same mistake I originally pointed out. You are conflating modern ideals (don't care about homogeneity or [racial] supremacy) with past ideals. America of the pre-war was actually concerned with those things. I could point to the power of the Klu Klux Klan or the fact that the Nazi eugenics movement was influenced by the American eugenics movement. It's not the case that "We" won the second world war. Our forbears did, and in some ways they were similar to us and in some different. My overarching point is that it doesn't really make sense to use the second world war as an example of the strength of modern diversity because modern diversity wasn't in place at that time.
      - Apocryphon 6y ago
        It might not be equivalent to modern day diversity, but the Allies- at least the liberal democratic nations- clearly represented a certain level of tolerance of diversity whether nationality or ideological, contrasted with the totalitarianism of the Axis states. Consider that the cracking of the Enigma code was somewhat of a pan-European project: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070300 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18070300 As I stated, the author is putting the cart before the horse in attributing the Allies’ diversity as part of the reason for why they won. But he isn’t completely far off in suggesting the Allies represented more open societies, the types that would lead to racial diversity later on. Precursors to modern diversity, if you will- at least closer to it than the fascist states were. Looking back at your earlier point about China, it’s interesting to note that despite being 92% Han, that civilization has always been not entirely homogenous- indeed the Republic of China which was the major ally in WWII Asia portrayed itself as a multiethnic state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union Was Nationalist China a liberal democracy with modern conceptions of equality, let alone diversity? Of course not. But they were closer to it than Showa Japan, at least.
  - jacobolus 6y ago
    In pre-WWII USA, Irish, Italians, Poles, etc. were not considered part of the dominant "white" "American" group. Likewise Jews. (Not to mention Latinos, Chinese, Blacks, ...) A very significant proportion of the US military in WWII (maybe a third? I don't know the precise numbers) came from socially marginalized minority groups. The war substantially changed the society: Common experience in the armed forces, people moving around the country after being uprooted by the war, subsidized college via the GI bill, etc. But even so, many people were scandalized at the idea of a Catholic president even in the 1960s.
- dash2 6y ago
  I wonder if that's true and how you would measure it. Germany, like the US, was an alliance of different states. If you read Buddenbrooks, there's lots of ethnic humour about the Bavarians and their strange accents. I don't think Germany had the same level of mass immigration - until the 1920s and 30s, when it led to the anti-semitic backlash. The more important point is just that the Nazis were explicit, avowed racists, while the US and Britain had a stronger ideology of racial equality and tolerance - though there was still plenty of racism in both those countries.

arethuza 6y ago

About a fifth of Battle of Britain pilots came from outside the UK - from a very wide range of countries. Worth noting the most successful squadron was Polish and the most successful individual pilot, Josef František, was Czech: https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/history-of-the-battle-of-britain/battle-of-the-nations.aspx https://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/research/online-exhibitions/his... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Franti%C5%A1ek