7 ms·

Has it ? What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Because History has shown repeatedly and consistently that escalation is reckless and extremely costly.

• js8 4y ago
  I agree, and even Hitler is dubious. I am Czech, and the Munich Agreement is very emotionally painful for us. However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. (Nor would fighting against Russian invasion in 1968, btw.) And arguably in the case of Ukraine the appeasement already happened after 2014 Donetsk war. I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed.
  • The_Colonel 4y ago
    > However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. That's actually very uncertain. If the war broke out, Hitler might get overthrown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oster_conspiracy Hitler's position was shaky at the time, but his success in Czechoslovakia made any opposition impossible and increased hunger for more.
  • KptMarchewa 4y ago
    That's also ignoring few earlier opportunities to strike against Hitler. >https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-poles-wanted-to-launch-a-preventive-war-against-hitlers-germany-3447 https://www.thefirstnews.com/article/first-strike-how-the-po... Additionally, after remilitarization, there were more opportunities to Strike. Rhineland, Anschluss of Austria... the longer you wait it's worse. >I also heard that appeasement was backreaction to WW1, where everybody was eager to go to war and it ended in bloodshed. Wehrmacht was not close to being combat ready yet, and would get crushed by combined Polish-Czechoslovakian-Western Allies troops. Without Czechoslovakia opposing them, and Czech industry fully contributing to Hitler's war machine odds were drastically better for Nazis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_38(t) >However, objectively, I don't think Czechs defending (like the Ukraine chose to) would save more human lives. And Ukraine is winning the war, saving 40 million Ukrainians from genocide.
• iSnow 4y ago
  >What's the data point, beyond Hitler ? Ukraine 2014. The West should have stopped Russia back then and there.
  • js8 4y ago
    How do you show that such action would lead to fewer deaths and less suffering?
    • nradov 4y ago
      That isn't a relevant question. The goal is to contain Russian expansionism, not to minimize deaths.
      • js8 4y ago
        Well, our values seem to differ, then. I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. I think saving the lives should always trump the national pride.
        • stoltzmann 4y ago
          Russian expansion does indeed mean dead people. It means constant suffering, political oppression (including killing opponents or forcibly relocating them), destruction of economy and the death of culture.
        • KptMarchewa 4y ago
          Do you not mind Russia transferring Ukrainian children to brainwash them? Admit it, Ukrainians face genocide.
        • iSnow 4y ago
          >I don't mind Russian expansion unless there are dead people in its wake. Well, you can't have one without the other, there's clear evidence of that going back decades.
• stonemetal12 4y ago
  Native Americans appeased the US till there was nothing left. You don't tend to see many appeasers around because there is nothing left of them.
  • mythrwy 4y ago
    Yep and the ones that did appease are still around. The others not so much. This parable works multiple ways.
  • Bayart 4y ago
    Native Americans didn't have the means to offer any substantial resistance past the initial stages of colonisation in North America. The point is moot. That's not even getting into the fact that "Native Americans" only exist in the eye of the colonizer. It's not a people, a collective body with agency.