5 ms·

The more desperate one side of a conflict is the more extreme their actions can be. And they’ll always justify it. Most people are against inflicting human suf

by jarym 4y ago

The more desperate one side of a conflict is the more extreme their actions can be. And they’ll always justify it. Most people are against inflicting human suffering but sometimes it’s not so black and white. Right now we can look at Afghanistan for an example - huge humanitarian disaster going on but world powers think by giving the cold shoulder then can soften the Taliban. There isn’t a clear cut right/wrong here imo.

adastra22 4y ago
Eh, no matter who history seems as “right” in that conflict, the British blockade of Germany was nevertheless against international law and norms of the time.
- buran77 4y ago
  History is written by the victors. When you're on the overall winning side you can wipe out war crimes or genocide within a blink of a decade. Just as long as you can stay on that side until your past becomes distant enough. Even provable facts don't really get traction and things get swept under the rug. You don't get to read that much about such a British blockade against Germany, about a Belgian genocide in Congo (or any other major European country, even for things from the past century), etc. It's not that they're not considered big deals, it's that people are usually completely unaware they even happened.
  - cafard 4y ago
    Hardly a thing about the Congo: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-ghost-adam-hochschild/1100487017?ean=9780358212508 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-ghost-adam-ho... (published 2020) https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-soliloquy-mark-twain/1102636173?ean=9788187496557 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-soliloquy-mar... (edition of 2020, written by Mark Twain in 1905)
    - buran77 4y ago
      Aah! A book! But really, I tried to make my point very clear. It's not that there's no info out there. Sweeping something under the rug doesn't mean the dust stopped existing, just that it's not immediately apparent and most people won't notice it. Ask a random person to list if they heard of King Leopold, the Congo genocide, etc. and see how many have heard the names before, let alone understand what's behind. Sure there's a Wiki page with details but the magic of rewriting history is not in deleting the truth but in making it uninteresting and obscure. And that allows people the assumption that nothing like this could have ever happened.
- JetSetWilly 4y ago
  It was Germany which started the Blockade first. In February 1915 they announced they would sink all allied merchant vessels around Britain. Britain responded in kind a month later. If you don't want other countries doing something to you, it is a good idea to not do the exact same thing to them first. Finally, I'm not even sure it was against the law at the time. Both participants seemed to regard it as legal.
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    It was Germany which started the Blockade first. In February 1915 they announced they would sink all allied merchant vessels around Britain. Britain responded in kind a month later. The timeline all the sources I can access with a simple internet search tell me this: - the UK blockade of Germany began in August 1914 - the UK declared the entire North Sea to be a warzone in November 1914, and expanded their contraband list to include all food - Germany declared the areas around the UK a warzone in February 1915, which is what you're referring to
    - JetSetWilly 4y ago
      It seems like it was gradually escalated on both sides to me. > When Britain joined the war on August 4, 1914, they did not immediately execute the entire plan to blockade all German imports. It was not until nearly four months into the war that Britain labeled the North Sea a war zone, and also began directing limited forces in the Mediterranean as well to restrict all German trade routes. > The final shift to establishing the full blockade came on November 11, 1914, after several German light cruisers were observed attempting to lay mines off the coast of southern England. This act of aggression gave British leaders the impetus they needed to declare the full blockade without U.S. resistance because during the first four months of the war, Britain had confined itself to blocking only war materials from reaching German ports. World opinion of Germany during this time began to deteriorate because of repeated reports of brutality directed against Belgian and French civilians. These things have a way of "tit for tat" escalating. If your opponent is doing things like executing whole villages of Belgian civilians as at louvain (August 1914), then the blockade starts to seem like a moral imperative. As well as that - if Germany is laying mines in layers off the British coast, that is a pretty effective way of stopping merchant traffic to Britain and is sure to elicit a response in kind. If a country started laying mines off the coast of New York how do you think the US would respond? http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/899/2/the-british-blockade-during-world-war-i-the-weapon-of-deprivation http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/899/2/the-british-b...
2Gkashmiri 4y ago
i am pretty much in the minority but if USA and "allies" didnt help ukraine, russia would come in, wipe the ruling party out, maybe destry some cities but the whole thing would be over in less time. the exact same thing that happened with afghanistan or iraq for example. instead, for once, USA has all the concern for human lives and "democracy" and is arming ukraine, thereby prolonging the war. this isn't even my own idea, this is the same ideology that USA itself uses to justify hiroshima/nagasaki... if USA isnt going to be responsible for actual crimes against humanity in hiroshima or vietnam with its napalm and others or with afghanistan or iraq then why are these same people trying to fault Russia for doing the same thing they did?
- pjc50 4y ago
  And when Russia comes for Poland, or Estonia, likewise they should surrender to make it quick? After all, to resist would be to harm the army of gunpoint Ukranian conscripts that would be used.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    uh.... afhganistan, then iraq, then libya, syria, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... so america can be involved in so many regime changes for the lulz, right?
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      So your argument is that because the USA are warmongering megalomaniacs, we should all be fine with Russia being one as well?
      - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
        why not....... the world did not stop you over the years, why are you stopping someone else now or has the USA decided to no interfere with third party conflicts ?
- 4y ago

by jarym 4y ago

adastra22 4y ago

Eh, no matter who history seems as “right” in that conflict, the British blockade of Germany was nevertheless against international law and norms of the time.

buran77 4y ago
History is written by the victors. When you're on the overall winning side you can wipe out war crimes or genocide within a blink of a decade. Just as long as you can stay on that side until your past becomes distant enough. Even provable facts don't really get traction and things get swept under the rug. You don't get to read that much about such a British blockade against Germany, about a Belgian genocide in Congo (or any other major European country, even for things from the past century), etc. It's not that they're not considered big deals, it's that people are usually completely unaware they even happened.
- cafard 4y ago
  Hardly a thing about the Congo: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-ghost-adam-hochschild/1100487017?ean=9780358212508 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-ghost-adam-ho... (published 2020) https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-soliloquy-mark-twain/1102636173?ean=9788187496557 https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/king-leopolds-soliloquy-mar... (edition of 2020, written by Mark Twain in 1905)
  - buran77 4y ago
    Aah! A book! But really, I tried to make my point very clear. It's not that there's no info out there. Sweeping something under the rug doesn't mean the dust stopped existing, just that it's not immediately apparent and most people won't notice it. Ask a random person to list if they heard of King Leopold, the Congo genocide, etc. and see how many have heard the names before, let alone understand what's behind. Sure there's a Wiki page with details but the magic of rewriting history is not in deleting the truth but in making it uninteresting and obscure. And that allows people the assumption that nothing like this could have ever happened.
JetSetWilly 4y ago
It was Germany which started the Blockade first. In February 1915 they announced they would sink all allied merchant vessels around Britain. Britain responded in kind a month later. If you don't want other countries doing something to you, it is a good idea to not do the exact same thing to them first. Finally, I'm not even sure it was against the law at the time. Both participants seemed to regard it as legal.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  It was Germany which started the Blockade first. In February 1915 they announced they would sink all allied merchant vessels around Britain. Britain responded in kind a month later. The timeline all the sources I can access with a simple internet search tell me this: - the UK blockade of Germany began in August 1914 - the UK declared the entire North Sea to be a warzone in November 1914, and expanded their contraband list to include all food - Germany declared the areas around the UK a warzone in February 1915, which is what you're referring to
  - JetSetWilly 4y ago
    It seems like it was gradually escalated on both sides to me. > When Britain joined the war on August 4, 1914, they did not immediately execute the entire plan to blockade all German imports. It was not until nearly four months into the war that Britain labeled the North Sea a war zone, and also began directing limited forces in the Mediterranean as well to restrict all German trade routes. > The final shift to establishing the full blockade came on November 11, 1914, after several German light cruisers were observed attempting to lay mines off the coast of southern England. This act of aggression gave British leaders the impetus they needed to declare the full blockade without U.S. resistance because during the first four months of the war, Britain had confined itself to blocking only war materials from reaching German ports. World opinion of Germany during this time began to deteriorate because of repeated reports of brutality directed against Belgian and French civilians. These things have a way of "tit for tat" escalating. If your opponent is doing things like executing whole villages of Belgian civilians as at louvain (August 1914), then the blockade starts to seem like a moral imperative. As well as that - if Germany is laying mines in layers off the British coast, that is a pretty effective way of stopping merchant traffic to Britain and is sure to elicit a response in kind. If a country started laying mines off the coast of New York how do you think the US would respond? http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/899/2/the-british-blockade-during-world-war-i-the-weapon-of-deprivation http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/899/2/the-british-b...

2Gkashmiri 4y ago

i am pretty much in the minority but if USA and "allies" didnt help ukraine, russia would come in, wipe the ruling party out, maybe destry some cities but the whole thing would be over in less time. the exact same thing that happened with afghanistan or iraq for example. instead, for once, USA has all the concern for human lives and "democracy" and is arming ukraine, thereby prolonging the war. this isn't even my own idea, this is the same ideology that USA itself uses to justify hiroshima/nagasaki... if USA isnt going to be responsible for actual crimes against humanity in hiroshima or vietnam with its napalm and others or with afghanistan or iraq then why are these same people trying to fault Russia for doing the same thing they did?

pjc50 4y ago
And when Russia comes for Poland, or Estonia, likewise they should surrender to make it quick? After all, to resist would be to harm the army of gunpoint Ukranian conscripts that would be used.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  uh.... afhganistan, then iraq, then libya, syria, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... so america can be involved in so many regime changes for the lulz, right?
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    So your argument is that because the USA are warmongering megalomaniacs, we should all be fine with Russia being one as well?
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      why not....... the world did not stop you over the years, why are you stopping someone else now or has the USA decided to no interfere with third party conflicts ?
4y ago