I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a transformation.
For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." The second part of that statement is either irrelevant or factually incorrect, depending on whether you are referring to potentiality or actuality, but let me guess: when confronted with the evidence against it, you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change.
Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing), downplaying the magnitude of transformation that did occur as a consequence of WW2, and your 'get out of jail' argument of simply denying that this or that was truly transformational. At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes.
> I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a paradigm shift.
Paradigm shifts require a significant fundamental systematic change. It mostly started out with kuhn describing scientific paradigm shifts, but can be used elsewhere. Here's one clue, paradigm shifts don't happen often. The fact that you listed 9 should be a clue that most or all of what you listed are not paradigm shifts.
> For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." ... you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change.
I was pointing out that soviet union existed before and after ww2 in pretty much the same position. Also, we are talking about the change of the global world order. You seem to be fixated on individual countries and are completing missing the point.
> Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing)
It's not a non-sequitur. I was just pointing out important events happened. But those important events don't change the international world order. Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc happened. Didn't change the international world order.
> At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes.
Once again, we are talking about transformation changes of the world order, not single nations. Since the "world order" is a fairly recent invention and hasn't changed, I'll give you localized historical examples.
The mongol conquest of china, middle east, russia, etc which shook up the geopolitical eurasian order.
The treaties of westphalia which created the sovereign nation-state.
You know significant events which actually changed something.
The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order. The same people running the world before and after.
I think the confusion here is that you seem to be talking about changes with individual nations while I'm talking about the world order.
The creation of israel, north/south korea, south sudan, etc are important to those nations, but didn't transform the world order. These nations all live within the established "western" world order. But if you feel different than you are entitled to it.
The opening of china was an important event, but didn't cause a paradigm shift since they decided to work within the "western" world order. If china ever challenges the current world order and decides to create their own international system and does so successfully, then a significant world transformation would have happened. A world led by china with "chinese values" instead of "western values" would amount to a paradigm shift in the international world order.
WW2 didn't cause a "transformation", it actually cemented and reinforced the pre-ww2 status quo. Once again in terms of the global world order, not individual nations.
Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods. The treaty serves as a marker for the conclusion of a phase of history (insofar as things ever do have a conclusion), but it certainly was not the event that caused the transformation.
To summarize the effect of WW2 as "The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order" is to avoid the issue, as it ignores the transformation of how the world was ordered within that broad characterization. The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers; afterwards, the Axis was gone, Russia was, for the first time, globally influential, the British empire existed in name only, the USA was exercising its influence to a degree never seen before, and the era of the nuclear standoff had begun. That was not a cementing of the status quo ante, and it is not obvious that these changes were less transformational than the fall of Constantinople.
By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me. While I do not agree with your position, I support your right to make it.
> Your case of the treaties of Westphalia is an excellent example of why trying to draw a sharp line between transformational and other changes is unhelpful, as the treaties were at most a ratification of a series of connected changes that had been building over long periods.
That's the point of a paradigm shift. It isn't a singular event. Momentum builds, a little here and a little there and then we have a systematic change. There is a world before westphalia and there is a systematically different world after. Lots of little changes and momentum before and during westphalia treaties.
> The pre-war powers that you list (USA, Britain and Russia) were either incapable of or unwilling to exercise their alleged dominance over the Axis powers;
What? Russia controlled germany via resources. Also, britain forced germany to pay a lot of reparations.
The idea that the pre-ww2 powers didn't enforce their dominance is factually incorrect.
> Russia was, for the first time, globally influential
Once again, you are fixated on a single nation. The international world order still remained the same. Whether a nation grows influence within it doesn't matter. Japan rose to become the #2 economy in the world and became "influential". So what? The world order remained. China is or will be the #1 economy in the world. The international world order still remains. China seems to be starting to create institutions to maybe one day challenge the international world order and if they do and they are successful, then a paradigm shift will have occurred. If they choose to get wealthy within the western world order like japan, taiwan, korea, etc, then no matter how rich china gets, no transformational change happens. It's significant change for china, but not for the world order. I don't know how better to explain it so I'll leave it at that.
> By the way, some of your posts in this thread have been downvoted, and I just want to make it clear that it is not me.
I don't care about downvotes. Especially on a forum. But thanks anyways.
There are a couple of points that can be made about this paragraph alone.
Firstly, let me remind you that it was you who presented the treaties of Westphalia as a paradigmatical paradigm shift, yet now you are backtracking, but not so far as to reach the logical conclusion, which is that this allegedly paradigmatical event was not causal at all; rather, it was caused by the changes that had already occurred.
Ironically, you are beginning to acknowledge that it is usually an over-simplification to look for paradigm changes in single events in isolation. This would be a reasonable counter to the thesis of the original article, but it is not the argument you are making here.
To consider some other specific claims:
> What? Russia controlled germany via resources.
That is an unconventional use of the word 'controlled', given what happened in June of 1941.
> Also, britain forced germany to pay a lot of reparations.
... to the point where, in 1938, Chamberlain could claim he had secured "Peace in our time".
> France took over german territory.
And yet did not respond to the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, an event that Hitler himself regarded as a great gamble, but it really was not, given the state of France.
> The US controlled Japan via resources.
To such effect that Japan expelled the US from the Philipines and was bombing Darwin, Australia, by 1942 - not to mention Pearl Harbor.
> Not only that when Japan beat Russia, [the US] forced Japan to return territory to Russia.
Of what relevance to WW2 is that? There were some significant events between 1905 and 1941. The non-response to the fate of the USS Panay and the destruction of Nanking is more emblematic of the situation pre- WW2.
> [The western powers] told Japan how many warships they could build.
Which they ignored, as did the rest of the Axis.
> The idea that the pre-ww2 powers didn't enforce their dominance is factually incorrect.
See the above.
>Once again, you are fixated on a single nation.
Of course, if you quote me out of context, you can make it look like I am fixated on one thing, but if you consider it in its proper context it is just one of a number of changes that amount to a truly global transformation -- and, furthermore, to a global situation in which the USSR was not just one more of many nations.
>So what?
The specifcs of the immediate post-WW2 situation were unimagined in 1939. The world of 1950 was even less so.
The rest of that paragraph essentially just asserts that nothing that followed from WW2 could meet your idiosyncratic standards for being a paradigm change, which brings us back to one of the first points I made in this thread.
Having said all that, I think there is an overlap in our positions, in that I don't think we can take any single event, even one as large as WW2, independently of the events that led up to them. I agree that the (re)development of the nation-state was a paradigmatical historical change, but I do not attribute it to a single event. I suspect that significant changes occurred in the first half of the 20th century, and those of and around WW2 were as significant as many of your paradigm changes (I notice that you are silent on the issue of the emergence of the nuclear standoff), but only time will tell for sure.
> Ironically, you are beginning to acknowledge that it is usually an over-simplification to look for paradigm changes in single events in isolation.
What? Listen, a paradigm shift didn't occur after ww2. If it had, it would be germany and japan ruling the world. The same world order existed before and after ww2. I don't know how else to explain the same thing to you.
> That is an unconventional use of the word 'controlled', given what happened in June of 1941.
It isn't. An abusive husband controls his wife until she fights back and he doesn't. Germany's top goal in ww2 was to free itself from its dependence of soviet resources for its economy, resources, etc. Not only that, it's still a problem today. Some nations are worried that germany's growing dependence on russia today is a geopolitical security risk.
> ... to the point where, in 1938, Chamberlain could claim he had secured "Peace in our time".
Yes, I saw that documentary too. What's your point?
> And yet did not respond to the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936, an event that Hitler himself regarded as a great gamble, but it really was not, given the state of France.
And? I saw that documentary too. What's your point?
> To such effect that Japan expelled the US from the Philipines and was bombing Darwin, Australia, by 1942 - not to mention Pearl Harbor.
Just because Japan wanted to free itself of US control doesn't mean the US didn't control it beforehand. Ever wonder why Japan attacked the US? Because Japan was sick and tired of being our bitch. This is basic historical fact. Not only is it a historical fact then. It's still a fact now. The US is the guarantor of Japan's access to resources. We hold the levers to japan's economy.
> Of what relevance to WW2 is that? There were some significant events between 1905 and 1941. The non-response to the fate of the USS Panay and the destruction of Nanking is more emblematic of the situation pre- WW2.
It's to show the US controlled Japan prior to ww2? Remember you didn't believe the US controlled japan? Imagine winning a war and being forced to return territory to the loser by your "master". Now that's control.
This is getting ridiculous. I could tell it is going to go on forever. I'm not sure why you are so confused about the control and influence that the US had over Japan and USSR had over Germany as ww2 was mainly about japan and germany overthrowing their "masters" and setting up a new world order where they are at the top. Still not sure why you are so adamant that ww2 caused a paradigm shift of the world order. I don't know what world you live in, but I live in a western world order. My grandparents born before ww2 also lived in a western world order. This is a fact. Doesn't mean change didn't happen. Just not a systematic and transformational one implying a paradigm shift. We are simply going to have to agree to disagree. Have a nice day.
> Listen, a paradigm shift didn't occur after ww2...
I am listening, but what I am hearing are demands that I must accept your teacher's dogma as the absolute truth, some highly tendentious claims misrepresenting the pre-war state, and an inconsistent application of the concept of a paradigm shift.
> ...If it had, it would be germany and japan ruling the world.
That would, indeed, have been one outcome that could be called transformational, but the actual outcome was transformational in its own right. Notably, you have been silent on the arguments I have presented for that point of view.
> I don't know how else to explain the same thing to you.
You could try to offer some fact-based arguments for the cold-war nuclear standoff and a demilitarized Japan, now part of the Western alliance, being the status quo ante.
Furthermore, in your insistence that only a complete overthrow of the world order (as measured in a single-sentence summary) would count a a paradigm shift here, you are being inconsistent. The Treaty of Westphalia produced no immediate paradigm shift in Africa or Asia, and the fall of Constantinople was similarly a regional event.
> An abusive husband controls his wife until she fights back and he doesn't.
That analogy simply does not work for the pre-war relationship between Germany and the USSR. Your view of that relationship seems to align more with Mein Kampf than to reliable sources.
> Some nations are worried that germany's growing dependence on russia today is a geopolitical security risk.
Maybe so, but it is a situation Germany chose to put itself in after the cold war, and is of no relevance here: Germany's current dependence does not establish the existence of a dependency, let alone control by the USSR, prior to WW2.
> Just because Japan wanted to free itself of US control doesn't mean the US didn't control it beforehand.
And just because you have said that, it does not mean that the US was exercising control over Japan in the run-up to WW2. In your previous post, you reached back to the Treaty of Portsmouth in search of evidence that could be bent in support of your claim, completely ignoring how things had changed by the thirties. One could indeed argue that the war in the Pacific was started by the US imposing sanctions on Japan -- after well over a decade of non-intervention -- and the immediate consequences of that action showed clearly just how little control the US had over Japan at that point.
> What?
...
>Yes, I saw that documentary too. What's your point?
...
>And? I saw that documentary too. What's your point?
The point is that they all refute the line of argument you presented in your previous post, and you have offered nothing here to alter that. My point is that your arguments for the US, UK and USSR controlling the Axis prior to WW2 do not hold up to basic scrutiny.
And, just for the record, my knowledge of the relevant history does not come from a single documentary. Your attempt to imply otherwise, together with your faux-rhetorical-question style of responses here, just underscores how poorly you are doing in coming up with factual arguments.
For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." The second part of that statement is either irrelevant or factually incorrect, depending on whether you are referring to potentiality or actuality, but let me guess: when confronted with the evidence against it, you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change.
Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing), downplaying the magnitude of transformation that did occur as a consequence of WW2, and your 'get out of jail' argument of simply denying that this or that was truly transformational. At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes.