5 ms·

> WWII is the quintessential transformational war, not only because of the sweeping changes it brought to the global order but also because of the decades-long

> WWII is the quintessential transformational war, not only because of the sweeping changes it brought to the global order but also because of the decades-long shadows it cast over the rest of the 20th century. This is funny because my history professor used ww2 as the quintessential example of a non-transformational war. Nothing essential changed as a result of ww2. All those lives lost for essentially nothing. The power structure pre-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ) was precisely the same post-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ). The same people who ruled the world before ww2, ruled it after ww2 without any systematic change. There was no paradigm shift as a result of ww2. The international world order remained in place. WW2 was the bloodiest war. It was the most destructive war. But it wasn't transformational because the side trying to cause a transformation ( reshape world ) lost and they lost badly.

pdonis 7y ago
> The power structure pre-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ) was precisely the same post-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ). Actually, it's even worse than that, because the main reason for the US and Britain to fight Hitler was supposed to be to save Eastern Europe from a totalitarian dictatorship (WW2 started because Britain and France decided they had to honor their treaty commitments to Poland when Germany invaded), yet at the end of the war Eastern Europe was in the hands of a worse totalitarian dictatorship, the USSR. So while the main great powers were basically the same (but see below), the territorial situation was worse. > the side trying to cause a transformation ( reshape world ) lost I'm not so sure the Allies weren't also trying to cause a transformation. There was a key difference in the power structure after WW2 as compared to before: the United Nations. The previous attempt at a single world organization, the League of Nations, failed miserably. The UN did not. Whatever you think of the UN's actual policies (I'm often not a fan of them), the fact remains that for 75 years now the world has accepted the existence of a single world organization that has at least some governmental or quasi-governmental powers. That is not an accident.
- chx 7y ago
  > yet at the end of the war Eastern Europe was in the hands of a worse totalitarian dictatorship, the USSR. I was born in Hungary and I lived under the USSR occupation of Hungary. I am also the grandson of an Auschwitz survivor so I strenuously object to you painting the USSR as worse as Nazi Germany.
  - pdonis 7y ago
    > I strenuously object to you painting the USSR as worse as Nazi Germany. "Worse" based on the total number of their own people killed. I don't think there's any dispute that that number is much higher for the USSR than for Nazi Germany. Since you mention Auschwitz, you might also consider the fact that the USSR had plenty of concentration camps in which people suffered just as badly. I have no doubt your grandparent's experience at Auschwitz was horrible, far, far worse than your experience in Hungary, but your experience in Hungary was also far, far better than what the USSR showed itself to be capable of. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago described one of the USSR's camps as a "polar Auschwitz".
btilly 7y ago
WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. It also set the state for the UN to be created. And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselves to pretend we aren't an empire. If we were isolationists, we would be a 13 state nation. Our first vassal nation was japan and we got them in the 1850s. But of course, we'd never call them that since that's what empires do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Go read up on the spanish american war and the colonies we got from that ( also in the 1800s ). And of course wars to prevent freedom of the philippines, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... Go read about the Great White Fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet For an isolationist nation, we sure did get around. > Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. Path of "liberating"? The UK and France didn't liberate anything. The indians, vietnamese, etc all fought bloody wars to free themselves from their brutal colonial masters. Tens of millions of indians, vietnamese, algerians, sub-saharan africans, burmese, etc had to die to liberate themselves. India, vietnam, algeria, etc weren't given their freedom by the "gracious" brits, french, etc. The british, french, etc colonizers were never the good guys. > And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. How convenient since the world had already been conquered by the winners huh? Not much left to conquer other than land dominated by the "winners". Also it wasn't anything new. The league of nations already laid the groundwork. Funnily enough, germany and japan weren't too fond of that since they had just begun their quest for conquest. > Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world. The former negates the latter. If you could point out the fundamental ( paradigm shift ) that occurred because of ww2, I'm all ears. Instead of saying it transformed the world, point out the transformation.
m908u0cf2q4t 7y ago
Was he, by any chance, a marxist?
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  No. At least I don't think so. I remember he was a francophone who believed that the french revolution was the most important event in the last 500 years. I remember a few of us arguing that the american revolution was more important since it came first and inspired the french revolution. Not to mention the fact that we eventually became the dominant world power and not the french. Easily one of the best professors I've had.
vkou 7y ago
> The same people who ruled the world before ww2, ruled it after ww2 without any systematic change. I find that claim difficult to reconcile with the fact that WW2, or more specifically, the collapse of the empires participating in it, broke the back of jackboot-and-bayonet colonialism. Not to mention that it completely reshaped the fate of Central and Eastern Europe for the next seventy years. The only people for whom little changed after the war were Americans, Scandinavians, and the Swiss. (I'd list the Russians, but while nothing changed domestically, they did find themselves in the middle of a new empire.)

pdonis 7y ago

> The power structure pre-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ) was precisely the same post-ww2 ( US, Britain, Soviet Union ). Actually, it's even worse than that, because the main reason for the US and Britain to fight Hitler was supposed to be to save Eastern Europe from a totalitarian dictatorship (WW2 started because Britain and France decided they had to honor their treaty commitments to Poland when Germany invaded), yet at the end of the war Eastern Europe was in the hands of a worse totalitarian dictatorship, the USSR. So while the main great powers were basically the same (but see below), the territorial situation was worse. > the side trying to cause a transformation ( reshape world ) lost I'm not so sure the Allies weren't also trying to cause a transformation. There was a key difference in the power structure after WW2 as compared to before: the United Nations. The previous attempt at a single world organization, the League of Nations, failed miserably. The UN did not. Whatever you think of the UN's actual policies (I'm often not a fan of them), the fact remains that for 75 years now the world has accepted the existence of a single world organization that has at least some governmental or quasi-governmental powers. That is not an accident.

chx 7y ago
> yet at the end of the war Eastern Europe was in the hands of a worse totalitarian dictatorship, the USSR. I was born in Hungary and I lived under the USSR occupation of Hungary. I am also the grandson of an Auschwitz survivor so I strenuously object to you painting the USSR as worse as Nazi Germany.
- pdonis 7y ago
  > I strenuously object to you painting the USSR as worse as Nazi Germany. "Worse" based on the total number of their own people killed. I don't think there's any dispute that that number is much higher for the USSR than for Nazi Germany. Since you mention Auschwitz, you might also consider the fact that the USSR had plenty of concentration camps in which people suffered just as badly. I have no doubt your grandparent's experience at Auschwitz was horrible, far, far worse than your experience in Hungary, but your experience in Hungary was also far, far better than what the USSR showed itself to be capable of. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in The Gulag Archipelago described one of the USSR's camps as a "polar Auschwitz".

btilly 7y ago

WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. It also set the state for the UN to be created. And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselves to pretend we aren't an empire. If we were isolationists, we would be a 13 state nation. Our first vassal nation was japan and we got them in the 1850s. But of course, we'd never call them that since that's what empires do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Go read up on the spanish american war and the colonies we got from that ( also in the 1800s ). And of course wars to prevent freedom of the philippines, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... Go read about the Great White Fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet For an isolationist nation, we sure did get around. > Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. Path of "liberating"? The UK and France didn't liberate anything. The indians, vietnamese, etc all fought bloody wars to free themselves from their brutal colonial masters. Tens of millions of indians, vietnamese, algerians, sub-saharan africans, burmese, etc had to die to liberate themselves. India, vietnam, algeria, etc weren't given their freedom by the "gracious" brits, french, etc. The british, french, etc colonizers were never the good guys. > And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. How convenient since the world had already been conquered by the winners huh? Not much left to conquer other than land dominated by the "winners". Also it wasn't anything new. The league of nations already laid the groundwork. Funnily enough, germany and japan weren't too fond of that since they had just begun their quest for conquest. > Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world. The former negates the latter. If you could point out the fundamental ( paradigm shift ) that occurred because of ww2, I'm all ears. Instead of saying it transformed the world, point out the transformation.

m908u0cf2q4t 7y ago

Was he, by any chance, a marxist?

dntbnmpls 7y ago
No. At least I don't think so. I remember he was a francophone who believed that the french revolution was the most important event in the last 500 years. I remember a few of us arguing that the american revolution was more important since it came first and inspired the french revolution. Not to mention the fact that we eventually became the dominant world power and not the french. Easily one of the best professors I've had.

vkou 7y ago

> The same people who ruled the world before ww2, ruled it after ww2 without any systematic change. I find that claim difficult to reconcile with the fact that WW2, or more specifically, the collapse of the empires participating in it, broke the back of jackboot-and-bayonet colonialism. Not to mention that it completely reshaped the fate of Central and Eastern Europe for the next seventy years. The only people for whom little changed after the war were Americans, Scandinavians, and the Swiss. (I'd list the Russians, but while nothing changed domestically, they did find themselves in the middle of a new empire.)