[Preston Cole]

Do you believe the narrative of modern Western moralism, WWII, and the story of the Second World War would remain exactly the same if China, Iran, India, or Brazil were the leading hegemons?

While Western moralism would certainly disappear, I don't think the story of WWII would change drastically. The modern non-Western powers were almost all, with a few exceptions (Argentina, for one), attracted to the Allied camp one way or another. The Axis and fascism are still remembered as the Sith of our times in most places of the world. It would at take at least a lot of time for these autocratic powers to overcome their anti-fascist butthurt.

[Far-Right Sage]

This is certainly true of the historical official Chinese view of the Japanese and Japanese imperialism, which precedes WWII and echoes back to the First Sino-Japanese War. As for regional powers such as Iran (pro-Axis under Reza Shah until the Anglo-Soviet invasion and placement of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi on the throne as a puppet) and India (technically an Allied constituent, but most Hindus, young and old have entirely different views on the German war effort, the effects of British colonialism, and the mainstream narrative as a whole) there would most definately be a shift, I believe. A cultural attitude which manifests itself in the opinions of individuals over an event which transpired decades ago is not exactly relevant to day to day affairs, but these nations at such a juncture will be faced with their own problems and contradictions, and the 20th century good guy/bad guy tale will be relegated to the bin of fairy tales and mythology, alongside Little Red Riding Hood.

[starman2003]

This is because the same lot who consolidated their defeat of the Axis remain entrenched in power - British and American neoliberals, as well as remnants of the Soviet bureaucracy to a great degree (Vladimir Putin).

Yeah, and don't forget the jews or pro-Israel element. Talk about being entrenched in power....I'm confident someday that'll change, big time, but for now......

[Andropov]

The Swastika had been used as a nationalist symbol by Russians before the Nazis even existed.

Here it is on a Bolshevik pamphlet.



Tsar Nicholas II had one on the radiator of his car.

The Slavic kolovrat (swastika analogue) was a very popular symbol in pre-WW2 Russia. My great-grandmother wore a necklace with a wooden kolovrat until her death, and was buried with it.



(similar to this, except without the bearded figure)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolovrat

I find it fascinating how this and many other pre-Christian symbols, and indeed not only symbols, but even old Pagan prayers, remain in use in some parts of Russia and Ukraine to this day.

Do you believe the narrative of modern Western moralism, WWII, and the story of the Second World War would remain exactly the same if China, Iran, India, or Brazil were the leading hegemons?

I have always been very curious how the Chinese view things. Do they hate the West for the humiliation it imposed on it for the greater part of the last 400 years?

[Far-Right Sage]

The layer of Slavic paganism within some countries and former Soviet areas is indeed interesting, Andropov. And perhaps in some areas of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus, Soviet authorities succeeded in weakening the Abrahamic faiths and their influence, but not the indigenous belief system.

As for the Chinese, they have a far greater reason to hold emnity toward the British, who held Hong Kong until 1997 and who, along with the French, participated in the Opium Wars to ravage Chinese society. The only action against China on the part of Germany historically that I'm aware of was the German Empire's (strategically important) participation in the coalition which fought against the Qing Dynasty and the Righteous Harmony Society in the Boxer Rebellion.

There is a history which goes almost until the opening salvo of WWII of Sino-German cooperation.

[Section Leader]

Hong Kong was held on a 99 year lease, the terms of which we honoured by handing sovereignty back in 1997.

[Far-Right Sage]

Why must the British always attempt to spin their imperialism into something "legal" and wonderful for all parties? This trait is a very unattractive and grating one after hearing the spin for a while. These types of faux-moral arguments crop up constantly when discussing the British presence in Ireland or India, and I'm tired of hearing them.

Although I was off by two years (1997 as opposed to 1999), my statement was not a condemnation of the British holding of Hong Kong. It was an attempt to explain one of the several reasons the Chinese might hold emnity toward the British as a result of their actions over the past couple of centuries.

You can hold claims to Beijing for all I care. Just stop the attempt at playing the victim or legal party role.

[Potemkin]

You can hold claims to Beijing for all I care. Just stop the attempt at playing the victim or legal party role.

But this is actually one of the Brits' most admirable traits, and is what enabled them to hold on to so much of the world for so long. The greatest criminal is one who can seize control of the law itself. As Bertolt Brecht once put it, what is robbing a bank compared to founding one? The British committed incredible, breath-taking acts of theft under the guise of legality, committed brutal atrocities under the guise of morality, and acts of philistine barbarism under the guise of civilisation. It's genius!