4 ms·

That is a gross over-simplification but it is based in a popular narrative so I don't blame you for it. The men who tried to avert WWII are mocked and shunned w

That is a gross over-simplification but it is based in a popular narrative so I don't blame you for it. The men who tried to avert WWII are mocked and shunned without any thought for the context they occupied. The popular consensuse after WWI was that ambitious elites had funelled the world into war seeking the glory of a previous age. And in the end, average people paid a terrible cost. Due to their ignorance of the changes in mobilization and military technology they embarked on something frivolous that in previous centuries would've only touched a few but instead created misery across several continents. There was an intrinsic logical reaction. Most cries for national glory and exceptionalism should be ignored. If there wasn't a direct benefit to the widespread populace, war should be avoided. This reaction is most evidentary in how so many European countries significantly democratized after the war with most monarchies disappearing or being sidelined completely to honorific status. The lessons of WWI couldn't have been timed any worse (though this doesn't make them wrong). The intent and tyrannay of the axis powers are fairly unique in history (I only know a few as totalitarian, brutal and empirical as they; the Assyrian Empire comes immediatly to mind). Their kind is not common in world history. It was easy to see Hitler as just another would be king who might goad the world into conflict but might also receded if not attended too. Edit: Bruce Carlson did a fantastic set of podcasts examining Neville Chamberlain's peace efforts. I think you have to pay for access to back episodes of his show now but they are well worth it. http://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com/ http://myhistorycanbeatupyourpolitics.blogspot.com/

chrisseaton 6y ago
With the situation that we had at the time, what do you think the Allies should have done as Hitler marched into Poland? Declared war? Or offered to make love? Sometimes you need to be prepared to say 'no' and back it up with a stick. If you've only invested in 'love' what the fuck are you going to do now?
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  This is quiet a false dichotomy you're running with here. You write as if the only choice is between funding global military efforts at their current levels or caving to the Nazis. Of course declaring war on Germany upon their invasion of Poland was the right thing to do. But it doesn't make declaring war before that the even righter thing to do. And it has little bearing on our choices today, that was another time. You can't use Hitler to justify WWI or the Crimean war or the Punic Wars. What makes him a better justification for building the war machines in Iraq or Aghanistan? There are many choices. We could spend the same money we do now on the military but only focus on defensive weapons. We could educe our spending on military by half and still be funding our military far above the level of most other countries. We could significantly draw down our military as we did after nearly every war in our history. Those are all choices. But we choose to spend incredible sums on forces which can project power around the entire world. We do that for a reason. It isn't entirely sinister but it isn't entirely altruistic either. In the end, we do it because it gives us power. For the exact reason the Athenians grew their "alliance" sometimes at the point of a sword. It gave them power. Putting that all aside, the best case you make for war is that it might reduce suffering and prevent tyranny. Well that is precisely the best case for publicly funded scientific, medical, safety and poverty efforts. Which is exactly the OP's point.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > This is quiet a false dichotomy you're running with here. Hang on no I’m arguing against the false dichotomy someone else presented, subscribing totally to ‘love not war’. I don’t think it’s either-or, that’s what they said.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      You realize that when most people use that cliche they aren't saying, "no war ever". They just generally mean you should avoid war if possible and invest more in constructive activities and less in destructive. As with most cliches the language is totalizing in a way the sentiment is not. Personally I am very nearly a pacifist. But I still support a strong defense (but an actual focus on defense which is far from what we have now). So I may employ this cliche from time to time but meaning we should lean away from our first strike and global capabilities. Not that we should abandon having any military altogether. There are some who feel that we should but they are very few and far between.

chrisseaton 6y ago

With the situation that we had at the time, what do you think the Allies should have done as Hitler marched into Poland? Declared war? Or offered to make love? Sometimes you need to be prepared to say 'no' and back it up with a stick. If you've only invested in 'love' what the fuck are you going to do now?

DubiousPusher 6y ago
This is quiet a false dichotomy you're running with here. You write as if the only choice is between funding global military efforts at their current levels or caving to the Nazis. Of course declaring war on Germany upon their invasion of Poland was the right thing to do. But it doesn't make declaring war before that the even righter thing to do. And it has little bearing on our choices today, that was another time. You can't use Hitler to justify WWI or the Crimean war or the Punic Wars. What makes him a better justification for building the war machines in Iraq or Aghanistan? There are many choices. We could spend the same money we do now on the military but only focus on defensive weapons. We could educe our spending on military by half and still be funding our military far above the level of most other countries. We could significantly draw down our military as we did after nearly every war in our history. Those are all choices. But we choose to spend incredible sums on forces which can project power around the entire world. We do that for a reason. It isn't entirely sinister but it isn't entirely altruistic either. In the end, we do it because it gives us power. For the exact reason the Athenians grew their "alliance" sometimes at the point of a sword. It gave them power. Putting that all aside, the best case you make for war is that it might reduce suffering and prevent tyranny. Well that is precisely the best case for publicly funded scientific, medical, safety and poverty efforts. Which is exactly the OP's point.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > This is quiet a false dichotomy you're running with here. Hang on no I’m arguing against the false dichotomy someone else presented, subscribing totally to ‘love not war’. I don’t think it’s either-or, that’s what they said.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    You realize that when most people use that cliche they aren't saying, "no war ever". They just generally mean you should avoid war if possible and invest more in constructive activities and less in destructive. As with most cliches the language is totalizing in a way the sentiment is not. Personally I am very nearly a pacifist. But I still support a strong defense (but an actual focus on defense which is far from what we have now). So I may employ this cliche from time to time but meaning we should lean away from our first strike and global capabilities. Not that we should abandon having any military altogether. There are some who feel that we should but they are very few and far between.