8 ms·

I moved to Europe (Scotland) about 10 years ago, and prior to that lived most of my life in China and the USA. One thing that struck me is that in both China a

• hef19898 5y ago
  Growing up in Germany in the 80s had a similar effect. Every one was, at least to a degree, aware to be living in the main battle ground of the next big war. Also the reason Germany had such a large peace movement. Obviously over simplified a complex situation.
  • smackay 5y ago
    The effect of the Cold War extended over much of Europe. I grew up in a small town in the north of Scotland which had an airport that could support Vulcan bombers. There was the widespread feeling we were on the list of places that would get nuked if hostilities broke out with the Soviet Union.
    • hef19898 5y ago
      I grew up next to an US listening post, NSA back then and German BND for a couple of years now. Same thing! That lakes one wonder how many such places exist on the other side of what used to be the iron curtain.
    • hollerith 5y ago
      It wasn't just a feeling. I live less than 8 miles from a major oil refinery in the US, and that fact is always in the back of my mind. I would much prefer to live at least 15 miles from anything worth nuking. (I do not consider the end of the Cold War to have been the end of the risk of nuclear war.)
    • mgarfias 5y ago
      In the mid 80s as a kid, I lived in Mountain View ca. A few miles from the Air Force satellite tracking station and moffet field. We knew we were getting a nuke if things went south.
    • kasey_junk 5y ago
      To be fair I go for walks in the park in a Chicago neighborhood that used to house nuclear rocket launch sites. This is near the lake in a really nice park. The Cold War was weird that way. And as someone who was still in school near the tail end of it, I’d say I’m not really worried about a large scale invasion because I always presumed I’d die very early in either a first strike or second strike scenario. I’d love to know what scenarios the French military think are likely that don’t involve large scale nuclear weapon deployments.
      • matkoniecz 5y ago
• EdwinLarkin 5y ago
  It's a real tragedy but nothing out of ordinary.Most of the world is not safe and the possibility of a war or regional conflict is high. People in US or China dont appreciate their safety enough.And safety is a prerequisite to prosperity. There are only a handful of nations that border hostile powers and can thrive and they all exercise" armed to the teeth" strategy.
• eru 5y ago
  Equally anecdotally, growing up in (East) Germany from 1985 to 2009, no one seemed to be concerned about a war coming.
  • flohofwoe 5y ago
    Not the type of "conventional warfare" that's common today, but I thought a lot about total nuclear annihilation as East German teenager in the middle to late 80's. And if war had happened around that time, it probably wouldn't be the cliche of Soviet tanks flooding the Fulda Gap, but instead Germany would have been a nuclear wasteland within half an hour of the start of the war. Movies like "The Day After" (US 1983) and "Briefe eines Toten" (SU 1986, don't know the official Russian or English title) didn't exactly help to settle the overwhelming anxiety ;)
    • eru 5y ago
      Yes, definitely. My proper awareness of these things doesn't really start before the 1990s, a golden age in terms of European expectations for peace, I guess.
• varsketiz 5y ago
  I live in Lithuania (eastern europe, neighbour to Poland). Can confirm. War on home turf is something that is in the back of my mind. It's also a business risk that we take seriously at the company I work at.
  • ocschwar 5y ago
    I spent most of the 80's somewhat close to the front of a war (Israel) as a child, but I was in the US for the events of 1989, and one of the things I saw was how in the US, people learned all the wrong lessons from those events. In Europe and in the US, there was no more denying that communism was a fail. But in the US, people got the idea that they won the Cold War by showcasing a consumer lifestyle, and that therefore it's unpatriotic to sacrifice any convenience or comfort for any national purpose. Which is how we've come to be unable to mobilize against the pandemic.
    • smcl 5y ago
      I've upvoted as I think it's unfair you were greyed out @ -1 or 0. However I slightly disagree that this was the main reason the US did not respond well to the pandemic. Might be a little off-topic to reopen that wound here though :)
      • ocschwar 5y ago
        Homefront mobilization is pretty much the same for disasters, wars, or a pandemic. If you can't do well with one, you probably can't do well with any other.
        • smcl 5y ago
          I am not sure I agree. What hobbled the US response to the pandemic wasn't the public at large clamoring to hold on to their creature comforts[0] but a top-down failure to recognise the impending crisis and take any meaningful action against it. I don't think anyone doubts the US's willingness to wage war - if anything they're a little too enthusiastic. [0] - though there was a minority who responded to being told to wear masks in a very juvenile way, coincidentally the same people who like to throw around the word "snowflake", hmm
• RicoElectrico 5y ago
  That is because Polish allies did not react to Hitler's invasion. And after the war, Poland was given to Stalin to become USSR's satellite. Trust issues are somewhat justified in this case.
  • shakow 5y ago
    > That is because Polish allies did not react to Hitler's invasion You mean, except triggering WWII in the West? > Poland was given to Stalin to become USSR's satellite What would you have proposed; launch WWIII?
    • captainredbeard 5y ago
      Patton was a fan of doing exactly that: he was probably right. If the USSR had been aborted early on, look at all the suffering that would have been avoided (Holodrome, etc.)
      • shakow 5y ago
        > Patton was a fan of doing exactly that: he was probably right Yeah, sure, good luck beating the RKKA in 1945. No A-bombs ready, industry centers are behind the Urals and untouchable by the allied air power; absolutely 0 support from the civilian populations in the West, whereas the Soviet civilian population would be galvanized by the backstabbing; the UK is already at the end of its manpower; the US would be fighting an ocean behind its logistic base; the RKKA is in full swing in Europe and overwhelming the WAllies in the ETO in men and material; best case is the WAllies get thrown to the Atlantic and a white peace is signed, worst case ends in a nuclear apocalypse. Operation Unthinkable is very fun in wargaming, but it doesn't hold water in practice. > look at all the suffering that would have been avoided (Holodrome, etc.) The Holodomor that happened 10 years BEFORE 1945? Do you even have any idea what you're talking about?
        • captainredbeard 5y ago
          ...thank you for the correction Holodomor timing.
• smcl 5y ago
  When I lived in Edinburgh a couple of Polish guys I knew would, whenever they got drunk, corner you and seriously interrogate you on whether you are “ready to fight and die for your country” (my answer was always “no” which really frustrated them). I thought it was just them being peculiar, I never thought it could be more widespread.
  • captainredbeard 5y ago
    This makes me love the Polish even more!
    • smcl 5y ago
      It was quite entertaining and they were good guys.
  • kiliantics 5y ago
    Polish culture is quite conservative and suffers from a lot of toxic masculinity. I would see this mostly as simply a manifestation of that. It's so weird and sad that "dying for your country" is still viewed as some kind of essential "manliness" by many.
    • smcl 5y ago
      It could be. To be honest I think there are many similar demonstrations of the same toxic masculinity in other forms by other Scottish or British guys, so it's maybe just that every country has its own form. Just ours was not so much "I will gladly die for my country"
    • valesco 5y ago
      Indeed, but they come from a place where not valuing dying for your country enables millions of civilian deaths and a totalitarian state.
      • smcl 5y ago
        I don't think I was very clear, this was not two guys level-headedly stating their intentions to defend their countrymen from a very real and imminent threat. It was a couple of guys who had a bit too much to drink who would - out of the blue - repeatedly bring this up to out-bro the guys at the table. In the case of a conflict we'll all see what where we stand, but I think drunken, grandiose declarations of loyalty made during peacetime should be taken with a pinch of salt. Hopefully we never need to find out how sincere anyone was.
• AlexB138 5y ago
  > Is the world getting safer? I think so. Is the risk of large scale war like France is planning for decreasing? I hope s This is very much the feeling people had before World War I. The thought was that the web of alliances Bismarck had built would prevent war, similar to your comment about the EU. It seems that this sort of interdependence acts more like a buffer to prevents small-scale conflicts, but results in large-scale conflict once it does actually come due to a cascading effect of allies being pulled over the brink. We may not see another real major war in our life-times, if we're lucky, but there's a very real chance our children or grandchildren will see the largest war in history.
  • frereubu 5y ago
    If anyone is feeling relaxed about the prospect of war, I recommend reading The World of Yesterday by Stefan Zweig, which is about exactly this moment. it describes the build-up to WWI in Vienna, where the feeling was very much "nobody is stupid enough to start, or be taken in by the idea of, a large-scale war", which was only true until it wasn't. The most chilling aspect of it for me was the way that people who Zwieg had previously considered calm and sensible became rabidly pro-war in a very short space of time.
    • chii 5y ago
      The large scale war of today must include the nuclear scenario, and i do believe that rationally, nobody would want that. Unless there's some aspect for which a nation would sacrifice for - like religious zealotry.
      • Guthur 5y ago
        Really? Over the last 200 years, at least, how many major conflicts have started for secular politics vs religious politics. I feel there is a heavy skew towards the former.
        • DisjointedHunt 5y ago
          What do you think "Jihad" means in the context of the September 11 attacks?
• Swizec 5y ago
  I grew up in Slovenia. There actually was war when I was 5 years old and I have several faint memories of those events. Luckily the war lasted 10 days and was mild. The Bosnian war next door raged for several years and much of my early childhood was steeped in news reports from the war, the aftermath, etc. As late as 2001, the USA was bombing the hometown of folks I later became friends with. I always joked that my focus on being in shape is because you never know when a zombie apocalypse might come ... but maybe those faint memories of war got embedded in my subconscious somehow. Either way, rule 1 of zombieland is cardio. Zombies are scary because theyre the only threat with more stamina than humans.
• throwaway84798 5y ago
  > One thing that struck me is that in both China and the USA, the idea of a war close to home is not a thing. Nobody considers it to be a remote possibility, and it isn't. It's a bit surprising that Chinese citizens would have that attitude at the same time as PRC leadership engages in brinksmanship over the status of Taiwan. Taiwan is one of the world's most significant potential "flashpoints", and it factors heavily in the military planning of the US, Japan, and South Korea. Inland provinces might be very far removed from potential danger, but I wouldn't be so confident if I lived in Fujian or elsewhere on the coast.
  • refurb 5y ago
    Indeed. And the Japanese invasion that lasted 8 years including WW2 isn’t that long ago. Nor the border skirmishes with the USSR, the war with Vietnam in 1979. I agree that China has enough force to make any invasion difficult but it’s certainly a risk of being attacked at home.
  • throw543477 5y ago
    I’ll add my own observation as someone in Taiwan. The vast majority of people here also don’t really believe a war with the Mainland will happen any time soon. Yes, people will casually talk about it, our politicians will occasionally bring it up, and our media will sometimes cover it, but more local events take precedence. For example, for the past week, the train crash that claimed 49 lives has been the main focus, despite the increase in fighter jets flying near our ADIZ. If you ask people what their future plans are, the idea of a possible war doesn’t really factor into their planning. Now there was a time it did. In 1996, before the first democratic election and again in 2000 when former President Chen was elected. Back then there was a genuine fear and people were preparing for the worst. Maybe everyone is just used to it now.
    • throwaway84798 5y ago
      My Taiwanese friends seem to have the same attitude. I think it's a combination of either naivety or fatalism. The PLAN is clearly making a massive investment in amphibious warfare vessels. The odds of a cross-straight invasion are certainly not 100%, but they are definitely not low enough to discount. This post from Tanner Greer is a good deep dive of the political attitude towards the issue within Taiwan: https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2020/09/why-i-fear-for-taiwan.html https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2020/09/why-i-fear-for-t....
• praptak 5y ago
  > I'm not really sure what there is to learn here, apart from the fact that the EU has been a phenomenal success in its real purpose - keeping the peace in Europe. Given how ridiculously anti-EU the current Polish government is, it makes one wonder whether they share this view.
• uhtred 5y ago
  > someone would casually remark that they're just spending time concentrating on keeping fit (aerobic and weight lifting) because "the next war is coming." I don't understand this mentality. Are those people young enough that they expect to get drafted, or do they think their CrossFit Bod will help them take down a professional soldier armed to the teeth.
  • vbezhenar 5y ago
    They expect to be recruited to army and good physical training will make them better soldier and increase their chances to survive. If full-scale war will happen, it's likely that every man of appropriate age will be recruited except for very important workers. That's why many countries have mandatory military training for its citizens.
  • btbuildem 5y ago
    Lol have a little read of Polish history. Statistically, they're expecting to fight a drawn out urban guerilla resistance campaign that eventually devolves into long periods of "camping" in the countryside. You'd wanna be fit for that.
  • samus 5y ago
    Depends on the country. Some countries have (similar to the US or Germany) just suspended the draft. Undoing this is not tricky at all. Some countries (like Austria) draft their citizen and reserve the option to mobilize them in case of crisis. In Switzerland, every draftee remains part of the armed forces up to retirement and participates in yearly exercises. Even if you don't get drafted, you might want to be able to protect your loved ones or simply be able to flee to safer areas. During a war, enemy soldiers are not the only threat. Societal collapse in the face of supply shortages or the frontlines closing in will make many people desperate and willing to take advantage of the situation. Some countries let their citizens keep weapons. Sure, they won't be able to prevail in open battle against a professional army, but they might be able to wage asymmetric warfare. There is always the option of yielding to the attacker, but there are clear risks to that as well!
• somesortofsystm 5y ago
  I also moved to Europe after a life in the USA, Australia, and Japan .. and have also noticed that Europeans have a much more keen sense of wars - in general - than the Australians or Americans .. and I attribute it to victor bias, mostly. Australians have no clue what real war is, but they celebrate it in their most sacred parks. Americans believe they will never be defeated in war, but don't consider conditions on Skid Row to be a sign of defeat. Its a terrible thing to understand that, in general, people do believe there will be more war and social upheaval on the horizon - but its even worse to realize there are entire continents of people who will suffer mightily, when it happens.
  • mb_72 5y ago
    Many Australians became such after migrating from war-torn countries or - like myself - are children of such immigrants (my mother and her grandparents are Estonian, and left Estonia during the Russian invasion of Estonia during WWII). You are correct that Australia hasn't suffered an 'invasion' (putting aside, yes, the invasion of Aboriginal Australia), but I do believe there are many current-day Australians who have a very good idea what a 'real war' can do to you, your loved ones and society in general.
    • somesortofsystm 5y ago
      On the other hand, there is definitely a situation in Australia with regard to the perceived infallibility of its Imperial forces. Australia is participating in the criminal wars of the US with degrees of impunity (i.e. accountability to the citizens of Australia) envied by most of the other participants. > (putting aside, yes, the invasion of Aboriginal Australia) This is all-too easily leaned on by Australians as a means of avoiding the uncomfortable truths of Australia's real history with imperial slaughter and social engineering. Current-day Australians are in serious danger of believing their righteous forces can do no wrong "except for all that genocide we've been doing as a nation since the beginning" ..
• dopidopHN 5y ago
  I’m French, my family has a lot of military members . In the 80´s the threat was Russian tanks marching to Paris from East Germany. 12h away. France is really aware of its place military speaking. We know we can’t sustain a serious conflict with country armed like Russia for instance. At the time the official plan was to sustain a Russian offensive for 3 days. And then either use nuke, or hope for allies /NATO force to be in a position to do something. ( those plan were for « USSR surprise attack » ) Right now, I have no idea . But you make a good point. People in Europe still remember wars. It’s not a movie thing.
• philwelch 5y ago
  > I'm not really sure what there is to learn here, apart from the fact that the EU has been a phenomenal success in its real purpose - keeping the peace in Europe. This seems to have very little to do with the EU. European countries that have experienced peace since 1945 did so because they were militarily occupied by a nuclear-armed hegemon—either the US or Soviet Union—and hence had their borders secured via mutually assured destruction. France is clearly positioning itself to be the new nuclear-armed hegemon of Western Europe as the US pivots towards either greater isolationism or focus on Asia and the Pacific.
• DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  This is an eerily profound statement. I've noticed the same preparedness for war amongst Europeans and while Mainland Chinese don't think there will be a war on Mainland China, they speak very freely about scenarios where Chine regains its rightful place in the world. For example, Taiwan, Singapore and the islands around, the Chinese friends i have in the region candidly admit that they see holding a mix of the US Dollar among other assets in their savings mix as a hedge against any conflict in the region because "If there is one, these islands are so small that they would be wiped out almost instantly" These conversations are usually in the context of saving for their childrens future and they're typically the biggest thing most Chinese families treasure, so their actions to protect and provide for them do speak loudly.