Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What similarity is there between the Hitler Stalin Pact, the Yalta Con

Rate this topic


Aizel
 Share

Recommended Posts

What similarity is there between the Hitler Stalin Pact, the agreement at Yalta Conference and the Atlantic Charter?

I need one similarity about the Hitler Stalin Pact, The agreement at Yalta Conference and the Atlantic Charter that I could make a thesis on and I could argue about in my essay. I don't see any similarities between the three that are worth arguing so please help me...Thanks in advance and please dont say they are all agreements because that is too obvious and I don't know if my teacher will give me an A for a paper that circulates on the topic that they are all agreements.thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum :) What grade are you in? Why did you come to an Objectivist Forum in particular? Are you interested in Objectivism? Have you read Ayn Rand? If so, what? How long does the paper have to be?

Sounds like an interesting challenge for you but I don't think you are in as deep a hole as you might think: I see great potential for this paper to be a lot of fun in thinking through and compiling.

You probably are going to have to find some very basic concept under which to unite these three pacts and "agreement" might be a good place to start. You could go one step further and characterize them all as "non-aggression pacts". I think both are good starting points as far as "similarity" is concerned. Defining your terms is always a good place to start.

The part that makes this assignment interesting for me as an Objectivist is that it is an exercise in concept formation. We form concepts by not only looking at the similarities between referents but we must also look at the differences. That is how concepts are defined, we look at what is similar about these things (genus) and what is different about these things (differentia). And I'm sure that is what your teacher expects (and even if it isn't she should appreciate you doing so). "Compare and contrast" as she might call it is an effective method of learning and teaching.

The differences are evident when you examine the kinds of actors (nations) that are parties to these agreements and so you are going to have to characterize those actors. In the Atlantic Charter you have an agreement between two moral or rational or non-aggressive or righteous nations. In the Hitler-Stalin Pact you have an "agreement" between two aggressive nations. In the Yalta Conference you have a mixed agreement between aggressive and non-aggressive nations and you can examine what the consequences or outcomes were for the three different Pacts depending on who the actors were.

You can even say that the outcomes were predictable depending upon the participants and can be illustrated even more logically by referencing the similarity as "non-aggression pacts". One was a non-aggression pact between non-aggressive nations. One was a non-aggression pact between aggressive nations. And one was a non-aggression pact between some aggressive nations and some non-aggressive nations. Which ones, logically, would you expect to be upheld? Using this method highlights the obviously contradictory nature of some of the agreements.

You can also illustrate this premise by examining something familiar to all students. What happens when two friends agree to do something together? As opposed to what happens when two enemies agree to do something? Which agreement is more likely to be upheld and which is more likely to result in problems?

The reason I put the word "agreement" in quotes above when talking about the Hitler-Stalin Pact is because you can never really have an "agreement" between disagreeable or aggressive participants, the word doesn't mean anything in that context and you can illustrate this premise also. You can talk about the bully who comes to you and "agrees" not to beat you up if you give him your lunch money. Is this really an agreement? Do you really have a choice in the matter? No, it is aggression, either you give up your lunch money (which is something you didn't want to do) or you get beat up (which is something you didn't want to happen). You get nothing out of this "agreement", you can't even be assured that you won't get beat up later that day or tomorrow. Just as if the mafia offers to "protect" your business if you pay a monthly fee -- this is not "protection" this is them telling you that if you don't pay, then they will burn down your building.

In the case of the Atlantic Charter most of the conditions were upheld. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was broken as soon as it was expedient for Hitler (though it could have been either). And to the degree that Yalta was a non-aggression pact it was broken by the Soviets if not during the war then immediately after by enforcing the communist policies.

I'm interested in how you tackle this assignment, keep us updated and feel free to ask more questions. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions as long as you don't expect us to do all the work and I didn't get the impression that that is what you were doing. Good luck.

Edited by Marc K.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum :) What grade are you in? Why did you come to an Objectivist Forum in particular? Are you interested in Objectivism? Have you read Ayn Rand? If so, what? How long does the paper have to be?

Sounds like an interesting challenge for you but I don't think you are in as deep a hole as you might think: I see great potential for this paper to be a lot of fun in thinking through and compiling.

You probably are going to have to find some very basic concept under which to unite these three pacts and "agreement" might be a good place to start. You could go one step further and characterize them all as "non-aggression pacts". I think both are good starting points as far as "similarity" is concerned. Defining your terms is always a good place to start.

The part that makes this assignment interesting for me as an Objectivist is that it is an exercise in concept formation. We form concepts by not only looking at the similarities between referents but we must also look at the differences. That is how concepts are defined, we look at what is similar about these things (genus) and what is different about these things (differentia). And I'm sure that is what your teacher expects (and even if it isn't she should appreciate you doing so). "Compare and contrast" as she might call it is an effective method of learning and teaching.

The differences are evident when you examine the kinds of actors (nations) that are parties to these agreements and so you are going to have to characterize those actors. In the Atlantic Charter you have an agreement between two moral or rational or non-aggressive or righteous nations. In the Hitler-Stalin Pact you have an "agreement" between two aggressive nations. In the Yalta Conference you have a mixed agreement between aggressive and non-aggressive nations and you can examine what the consequences or outcomes were for the three different Pacts depending on who the actors were.

You can even say that the outcomes were predictable depending upon the participants and can be illustrated even more logically by referencing the similarity as "non-aggression pacts". One was a non-aggression pact between non-aggressive nations. One was a non-aggression pact between aggressive nations. And one was a non-aggression pact between some aggressive nations and some non-aggressive nations. Which ones, logically, would you expect to be upheld? Using this method highlights the obviously contradictory nature of some of the agreements.

You can also illustrate this premise by examining something familiar to all students. What happens when two friends agree to do something together? As opposed to what happens when two enemies agree to do something? Which agreement is more likely to be upheld and which is more likely to result in problems?

The reason I put the word "agreement" in quotes above when talking about the Hitler-Stalin Pact is because you can never really have an "agreement" between disagreeable or aggressive participants, the word doesn't mean anything in that context and you can illustrate this premise also. You can talk about the bully who comes to you and "agrees" not to beat you up if you give him your lunch money. Is this really an agreement? Do you really have a choice in the matter? No, it is aggression, either you give up your lunch money (which is something you didn't want to do) or you get beat up (which is something you didn't want to happen). You get nothing out of this "agreement", you can't even be assured that you won't get beat up later that day or tomorrow. Just as if the mafia offers to "protect" your business if you pay a monthly fee -- this is not "protection" this is them telling you that if you don't pay, then they will burn down your building.

In the case of the Atlantic Charter most of the conditions were upheld. The Hitler-Stalin Pact was broken as soon as it was expedient for Hitler (though it could have been either). And to the degree that Yalta was a non-aggression pact it was broken by the Soviets if not during the war then immediately after by enforcing the communist policies.

I'm interested in how you tackle this assignment, keep us updated and feel free to ask more questions. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking questions as long as you don't expect us to do all the work and I didn't get the impression that that is what you were doing. Good luck.

thanks for some of the preview that i need in writing my essay but my teacher gave us idea about this topic and he said something about russia woirking on itself alone one time and joining with the other nations another time(*like on treaties and agreements).oh btw,,im new in this site. thanks for the warm-hearted welcome.: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What similarity is there between the Hitler Stalin Pact, the agreement at Yalta Conference and the Atlantic Charter?

They were all agreements between the few countries participating that presumed to determine the fates of other countries that did not participate in the agreements. In other words, they were all imperialistic. Wikipedia: imperialism: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They were all agreements between the few countries participating that presumed to determine the fates of other countries that did not participate in the agreements. In other words, they were all imperialistic. Wikipedia: imperialism: "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination."

I don't want to spend much time debating this since, frankly, I don't know very much about it, but the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic Charter appears to be in conflict with your assessment. It lists the eight principal points of the Charter as:

1. no territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned;

3. all peoples had a right to self-determination;

4. trade barriers were to be lowered;

5. there was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare;

6. the participants would work for a world free of want and fear;

7. the participants would work for freedom of the seas;

8. there was to be disarmament of aggressor nations, and a postwar common disarmament.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with the Charter's aims or implementation. Nor am I saying that an argument can't be made that points 2 and 3 might represent a kind of democratic imperialism or that points 5 and 6 represent welfare statist imperialism, as I think that argument can be made.

I'm just saying that on the face of it points 1 thru 4 seem to refute your definition directly. And, that given the context of the time, this Charter represents an opposition to the actually imperialistic ideologies, goals and actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to spend much time debating this since, frankly, I don't know very much about it, but the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic Charter appears to be in conflict with your assessment. It lists the eight principal points of the Charter as:

1. no territorial gains were to be sought by the United States or the United Kingdom;

2. territorial adjustments must be in accord with the wishes of the peoples concerned;

3. all peoples had a right to self-determination;

4. trade barriers were to be lowered;

5. there was to be global economic cooperation and advancement of social welfare;

6. the participants would work for a world free of want and fear;

7. the participants would work for freedom of the seas;

8. there was to be disarmament of aggressor nations, and a postwar common disarmament.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with the Charter's aims or implementation. Nor am I saying that an argument can't be made that points 2 and 3 might represent a kind of democratic imperialism or that points 5 and 6 represent welfare statist imperialism, as I think that argument can be made.

I'm just saying that on the face of it points 1 thru 4 seem to refute your definition directly. And, that given the context of the time, this Charter represents an opposition to the actually imperialistic ideologies, goals and actions of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

I left it an open question as to whether imperialism is always necessarily bad, but the Charter definitely had its bad points so all three agreements were examples of bad imperialism.

Item 1 is fine, but since the UK and the US were building a trade empire not a physical empire it can still be consistent with a "good" imperialism. For items 2 and 3 the victors in the war are to presume which people to listen to and a right to interfere in the domestic politics of other countries on behalf of racial groups. Race is elevated above the nation-state as a matter of principle. Item 4 is fine if they were pledging to lower their own trade barriers, but they were also pledging to lower other countries' trade barriers for them by force. The Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere (i.e. the Empire of Japan) was the implicit target of point 4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All three directly benefited the USSR and resulted in massive territorial gain for it.

1. The Ribbentrop-Molotov pact gave the USSR Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, half of Poland, parts of Romania and a piece of Finland (would've been all of it, but goddamn nazi capitalist counter-revolutionaries had somehow disguised themselves as the entire Finnish people and brutally cut off the iron hand of peace we've extended to them).

2. The Atlantic Charter was the US and UK effectively telling Stalin "do whatever you want, won't hear a peep from us, and we'll pay you for it, too!". American trucks handled the Red Army's logistics at a time when the Germans used horse-drawn carts. American food, British engine schematics, parts, materials and everything in between, that one Allied Flying Fortress that crash landed in Soviet territory that we simply didn't give back... So on, so forth.

3. The Yalta Conference gave Eastern Europe to Stalin. All the countries that I have listed before, a bunch of the stuff that Hitler took, oh and half of Germany on top of that.

For fun, try digging up the points agreed upon in the pacts and comparing them to what actually happened.

Good times, good times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...