Talk:Perpetual peace

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The German article about the work by Immanuel Kant is Zum ewigen Frieden. Some more English text can be found in an older version of Perpetual Peace. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 16:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against Merger[edit]

I agree with Ultramarine that 'Perpetual Peace' should refer to Kant's essay primarily, and only secondarily to related concepts. Kant's article deserves an entry in and of itself; discussion of 'World Peace' should be based in part on the 'Perpetual Peace' article.'

Merger[edit]

Oppose merger. Perpetual peace is Kant's term and related to his theory. It is not the same as world peace which can have many different causes. It there is a merger, it should be from Perpetual peace to World peace.Ultramarine 23:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


World Peace was not what Kant was describing in this essay. Kant's Perpetual Peace is more than sunshine and daisies which many people take world peace to mean.

Disputed templates[edit]

A brief review shows that the false claims regarding Well's pamphlet are again repeated. Well's was a socialist and despised liberal democracy. None of his arguments are for popular government. Ultramarine 00:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lie It is in the popular government of the allies that he relies for the perpetuity of the peace. Septentrionalis 01:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From the last chapter of the book (p. 94) "By means of a propaganda of books, newspaper articles, leaflets, tracts in English, French, German, Dutch, Swedish, Norwegian, Italian, Chinese and Japanese we have to spread this idea, repeat this idea, and impose upon this war the idea that this war must end war. We have to create a wide common conception of a re-mapped and pacified Europe, released from the abominable dangers of private trade in armaments, largely disarmed and pledged to mutual protection." Here is one quote (p. 11-12) "For this is now a war for peace. It aims straight at disarmament. It aims at a settlement that shall stop this sort of thing for ever. Every soldier who fights against Germany is now a crusader against war. This, the greatest of all wars, is not just another war-it is the last war! England, France, Italy, Spain and all the little countries of Europe are heartily sick of war; the Tsar has expressed the passionate hatred for war; the most of Asia is unwarlike; the United States ha no illusions about the war. And never was war a begun so joylessly, and never was war begun with so grim a resolution. In England, France, Belgium, Russia, there is no thought of glory". On socialism: (p. 58) "And I perceive too, that if presently my banker dissolved into the rest of this dissolving world-a thing I should have thought an unendurable calamity a month ago-I shall laugh and go on . . . Ideas that have ruled life as though they were divine truths are being chased and slaughtered in the streets. The rights of property, for example, the sturdy virtues of individualism, all toleration for the rewards of abstinence, vanished last week suddenly amidst the execrations of mankind upon a hurrying motor-car loaded with packages of sugar and flour. They bolted, leading Socialism and Collectivism in possession. The State takes over flour mills and the supply, not merely for military purposes, but for the general welfare of the community" Wells was no friend of liberal democracy or free press. He expressed this clearly two years later "Now, however clumsy and confused the diplomacy of these present Allies may be (challenged constantly, as it is, by democracy and hampered by a free, venal and irresponsible Press in at least three of their countries), the necessity they will be under will be so urgent and so evident, that it is impossible to imagine that they will not set up some permanent organ for the direction and co-ordination of their joint international relationships."[1]Ultramarine 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another straw man. It is possible to support democracy and deplore the actions of the press in war-time; why I believe I was discussing such statements by some poli-sci prof called Rummel quite recently. Nor is it surprising that Wells regarded democracy as one of several necessary points; there's something called Kantian peace theory, which makes the same argument nowadays. Septentrionalis 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are incorrect. As noted in my quotes, Wells never mention liberal democracy as a cause for perpetual peace. Ultramarine 01:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your ability to lift quotes wholly and present them out of context never ceases to amaze me....--Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please give your supporting quote. My first quote is Wells summary of his position.Ultramarine 02:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's Wells' summary of one of his positions.

I decline to quote at length, but he dicusses the peaceable resolve of the Allies on p.14 (all references to NY edition); the fact that this is due to the constrast with the Prussian system of militarization on p. 17-8; the baleful and warlike effect of monarchy on p.56; the liberal peace on pp.66-8; the necessary appearance of a "more democratic, tolerant and cosmopolitan idea of Russia" (p.72) which will dispel the possibility of Russia oppressing Europe (p. 70); the misfortune of having to "reckon not only with peoples but with kings" in the Balkans, for "it is the greeds and vanities of exceptional monarchs [like Napoleon and Frederick the Great] that bring [about] a crisis." (p.95) I'm sure there are more that I've missed. It is truly strange that Ultramarine should not have noticed that Wells hates the Kaiser as much as he does, and for the same reasons. Septentrionalis 02:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote at length like I do. Ultramarine 03:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I decline to quote passages three pages in length, especially from a printed source. Such demands are also harassment. Go and look up the cited pages. Septentrionalis 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I quote at length, you do not.Ultramarine 04:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of your argument? --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine quotes several sentences; what he is demanding is the quotation of several pages. This is a hobby; if Ultramarine offers to pay me for data-entry, that will be another matter. Septentrionalis 18:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite by page. As the book is neither obscure nor hard to obtain, that is sufficient. I commend to Ultramarine (and anyone else interested in checking the citations in detail) a marvelous institution called the library. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'...but several large empires have maintained relative peace in their spheres of influence over extended periods of time. Typical examples are the Roman Empire (see Pax Romana) and the British Empire (see Pax Britannica).' Sort of like the American Empire is maintaining perpetual peace? This statement is factually and intellectually dishonest and should be revised to state the known reality, that empires are inherently opposed to peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peelinglayers (talk • contribs) 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

"Many would-be world conquerors have promised that their rule would enforce perpetual peace."

"Several religions have prophesied that their divinity would produce perpetual peace at some point in the future."

"There are also a number of secular projects for a perpetual peace which employ means more subtle, but perhaps more attainable, than universal empire or even democratic world government."

"If one state can't reach the power to impose peace on the world, perhaps several can. Henri IV attempted to actually create such a confederation. Others were proposed by the abbé de Saint-Pierre and Jean-Jacques Rousseau."

  • See third link under references, which discusses Saint-Pierre as well as Bentham, Kant and Rousseau. Septentrionalis

The author has refused to give sources: [2]. As such, it should be deleted according to Wikipedia:Cite Sources "What this means is that any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor." Ultramarine 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no verifiable sources. Please do.Ultramarine 03:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For everything in this section down to Shia Islam, see the relevant articles in the Britannica, or any other encyclopedia. The third statement is a summary of a remainder of the article. The last statement is sourced from the paper by Beck, as linked to. This is harassment. While I would not have responded by an AfD nomination, I can understand Scaife's action. Septentrionalis 03:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do not seem understand what cite sources means. Give the exact edition and articles. Remember that you were warned by the arbcom for refusing to give pages numbers and only giving whole books as sources.Ultramarine 03:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find the Britannica article on Alexander the Great without a page reference? Septentrionalis 04:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3]--Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at the articles and could not find that for example Alexander promised perpetual peace or anything similar. Please quote at length or I must draw conlusions.Ultramarine 04:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In two minutes you purchased a subscription to the Britannica, looked up and read 5 articles? Impressive. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know very little about me. Please answer the question.Ultramarine 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I know plenty. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer the question. Ultramarine 11:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer what question? All you have made in this thread is demands. --Scaife (Talk) Don't forget Hanlon's Razor 17:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For "Alexander's work as an apostle of world peace" see F. A. Wright: Alexander the Great p. 241.

  • cf. W, Cuppy, The Decline and Fall... n. 22 to chapter on Alexander, p. 45, 1984 Nonpareil ed.

CAH Vol VI p. 423-6 (1927 ed.)Septentrionalis 22:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good that you admit that Britannica does not contain this. You have no given a source for your other disputed claims.Ultramarine 13:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no one admitted any such thing. You should read both your sources and your fellow editors more carefully. The references in the Brittanica article[4] are scattered and sometimes oblique, but Diodorus is cited (and critiqued), as are Alexander's policies of panhellenism and Greco-Persian fusion.
While you are technically within your rights to insist on a specific citation for any fact claimed, no matter how trvial or well known, it does not contribute to a better article when you demand them in peremptory terms for points that are obvious to anyone with even casual knowledge of the field. I would rate the observation that a sane conqueror doesn't intend his empire to fight among itself among such points. It passes my credulity to suppose that you seriously dispute the claim, so if your concern is merely to solidify the references, why couldn't you just say so politely -- or do something cooperative like help? Robert A.West (Talk) 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus[edit]

Hirohito[edit]

  • The Showa era means enlightened peace, on the same theory: after we conquer the world it will be peaceful.
  • See the chapter on Japan in John Gunther's Inside Asia, which is contemporary.Septentrionalis 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity and Judaism[edit]

  • See quote from Isaiah, added by Mr. West to this article.Septentrionalis 16:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shia[edit]

Wikisource[edit]

Extensive quotations from original sources do not belong in Wikipedia articles. That is what Wikiquote and Wikisource are for. Septentrionalis 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV[edit]

This article is potentially good, but it is not neutral. This statement in the intro is not good: "There are also a number of secular projects for a perpetual peace which employ means more subtle, but perhaps more attainable, than universal empire or even democratic world government." It sounds very opinionated, please fix it. Acumensch (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perpetual_peace&oldid=1199902277"