3 ms·

> Why does the leader of the most powerful country in Europe believe he is alone and defenseless unless he acts in lockstep with the United States? Maybe becau

> Why does the leader of the most powerful country in Europe believe he is alone and defenseless unless he acts in lockstep with the United States? Maybe because the most powerful country in Europe launched two world wars in span of less than 100 years?

riku_iki 3y ago
how long do you think country needs to behave until it will clear its name? Also, most of the major powers did some kind of bloody wars in last 100 years, its just happened that Germans lost two wars and winners usually decide who are good guys and who are bad guys.
- timeon 3y ago
  The relevant is that army doctrine of Germany turned 180 degrees in 2022. This article is overzealous.
- lostlogin 3y ago
  The war winner does get to do a lot of historical revisionism. That said, I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two. The sides in that war ranged from ‘Bad’ to ‘Very Bad’ in my opinion.
  - riku_iki 3y ago
    > I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two. I didn't say they were good, but I am not sure if they were much worse than soviets and chinese, who received all benefits of winners and were considered as good guys right after ww2.
    - lostlogin 3y ago
      > were considered as good guys right after ww2. That’s mostly true but it was a marriage of convenience and did not last long. Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech was in March, 1946, only a year after the war ended. Relations were getting frosty much earlier and Churchill’s opposition to communism long predated the war. ‘I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism.’ April 1937. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-el... https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/the-creeds-of-the-devil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945-2-of-3/#:~:text=I%20will%20not%20pretend%20that,ism%2C%20I%20would%20choose%20Communism https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras....
      - ImHereToVote 3y ago
        He would if he was Jewish.
        lostlogin 3y ago
        That’s a rough choice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_U...
        ImHereToVote 3y ago
        Take a step back and touch some grass.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        What a nice argument.
      - riku_iki 3y ago
        > Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech was in March, 1946 he was out of power at that time: retired politician who lost elections. His opinion was his personal and didn't represent any government policies. > ‘I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism.’ April 1937. at that time yes, communists spilled much more blood than nazis.
- sottol 3y ago
  This _was_ very much enshrined in German society for the longest time, many people growing up in the 1980s or 1990s had parents that had witnessed WWII. Germany is very densely populated but mostly smaller towns and cities and people tend to stay put more, so there's a lot of local history/memory. Imagine small towns where a generation ago everybody knows several people that died in the war and those who stayed home experienced other hardships. The US has been spared this mostly, but even the US smaller scale foreign wars had a toll on military members. I grew up in Germany, and up until the FIFA World Cup in 2006 I can't remember seeing any person fly a German flag outside their house! Nationalism was a very frowned-upon thing, mostly for "Neo-Nazis", understood to be a slippery slope that lead to wars. The same goes for politics, there was great debate every single time German troops were deployed abroad before ~2010, see eg [1]. But things may be changing, AfD is gaining more and more popular support indicating an uptick in nationalism to me and a stronger feeling of international "importance". [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/28/germans-in-angst-filled-debate-over-troop-deployment-to-somalia/4c80ceed-c7a8-4f8c-99c8-62735251bbdb/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/28/g...
  - scrubs 3y ago
    Japan similarly has been reluctant to re-militarize. The essential question is whether they can now see change is required. Our super power role isn't good for America either (I'm American). We spent too time in the middle east protecting oil, and committed ourselves to stupid wars in Iraq under Bush. Guntanimo Bay and special extradition are grave American errors. I am happy to see that through energy independence we can delink ourselves from the middle east. I am heartened too see new applicants to Nato, which is a defensive force only. Going forward neither European weakness nor American habit of leading should play us into anything other than strategic threats namely China. We have to learn to say no. Once nato partners have a problem on their border we need to compose better and strengthen each other. I'm inclined to agree: better to temporarily prioritize China over getting better European cooperation if push comes to shove. We can't own European risk more than it can itself.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
ctrlp 3y ago
Tell us you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  Are you trying to say Germany didn't launch both World Wars? Which one are you disputing, when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 or Germany invading Poland in 1939?
  - ctrlp 3y ago
    Germany didn't "launch" WWI. WWI was "launched" by political and revolutionary pressures triggering a complex of alliances in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. WWII had similarly complex causes. It's a ridiculous simplification to lay the blame for launching these wars on one country alone, regardless of how things went.
    - reducesuffering 3y ago
      There's a lot of apologia for Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW1. But ultimately, Austria-Hungary started the hostilities, shelling Belgrade (cmon), and Germany allied with the aggressor and then also invaded Belgium to get to France. I don't care if you have a "complex alliance" with a clearly aggressive country (Austria-Hungary) invading Serbia. You don't support that period. And Austria-Hungary also invaded Serbia because they had Germany's backing to deal with the repercussions. Russia defending Serbia from invasion and France defending Belgium and themselves isn't an equally culpable standing. 20 million dead. Because Austria-Hungary and Germany invaded other countries. WW2 just further proved that they really were the culpable countries.
      - ctrlp 3y ago
        The original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country" is totally inadequate to an accurate view of this history. Austria was a declining multi-ethnic empire with internal ethnic conflicts mostly concentrated in the Serbian Nationalist movement. The Serbs were in turn supported (prior to war) by a militarizing Russia (that allied with France) who was in geopolitical competition with Germany for warm-water ports via the Balkans (sound familiar?). If you were leading Germany at that time, you'd be worried about Russia's ambitions, too. You could do a similar analysis of the complexities that precipitated WWII, not least of these was the incredibly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Read Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" among many other books about how "stupid" that treaty was. Combine that with the incredible street-level social-political instability of the inter-war years, mass migration, Bolshevism, etc... and you might have a more nuanced answer about how wars are started and who is culpable. In any case, moralizing about war and geopolitics is a sort of category error, imho. What would you have had these countries do differently, I wonder?

riku_iki 3y ago

how long do you think country needs to behave until it will clear its name? Also, most of the major powers did some kind of bloody wars in last 100 years, its just happened that Germans lost two wars and winners usually decide who are good guys and who are bad guys.

timeon 3y ago
The relevant is that army doctrine of Germany turned 180 degrees in 2022. This article is overzealous.
lostlogin 3y ago
The war winner does get to do a lot of historical revisionism. That said, I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two. The sides in that war ranged from ‘Bad’ to ‘Very Bad’ in my opinion.
- riku_iki 3y ago
  > I’d be interested in hearing the argument that Germany was the good guy in World War Two. I didn't say they were good, but I am not sure if they were much worse than soviets and chinese, who received all benefits of winners and were considered as good guys right after ww2.
  - lostlogin 3y ago
    > were considered as good guys right after ww2. That’s mostly true but it was a marriage of convenience and did not last long. Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech was in March, 1946, only a year after the war ended. Relations were getting frosty much earlier and Churchill’s opposition to communism long predated the war. ‘I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism.’ April 1937. https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-elder-statesman/the-sinews-of-peace/ https://winstonchurchill.org/resources/speeches/1946-1963-el... https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras/the-creeds-of-the-devil-churchill-between-the-two-totalitarianisms-1917-1945-2-of-3/#:~:text=I%20will%20not%20pretend%20that,ism%2C%20I%20would%20choose%20Communism https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour-extras....
    - ImHereToVote 3y ago
      He would if he was Jewish.
      - lostlogin 3y ago
        That’s a rough choice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_U...
        ImHereToVote 3y ago
        Take a step back and touch some grass.
        wiseowise 3y ago
        What a nice argument.
    - riku_iki 3y ago
      > Churchill’s ‘Iron Curtain’ speech was in March, 1946 he was out of power at that time: retired politician who lost elections. His opinion was his personal and didn't represent any government policies. > ‘I will not pretend that, if I had to choose between Communism and Nazi-ism, I would choose Communism.’ April 1937. at that time yes, communists spilled much more blood than nazis.
sottol 3y ago
This _was_ very much enshrined in German society for the longest time, many people growing up in the 1980s or 1990s had parents that had witnessed WWII. Germany is very densely populated but mostly smaller towns and cities and people tend to stay put more, so there's a lot of local history/memory. Imagine small towns where a generation ago everybody knows several people that died in the war and those who stayed home experienced other hardships. The US has been spared this mostly, but even the US smaller scale foreign wars had a toll on military members. I grew up in Germany, and up until the FIFA World Cup in 2006 I can't remember seeing any person fly a German flag outside their house! Nationalism was a very frowned-upon thing, mostly for "Neo-Nazis", understood to be a slippery slope that lead to wars. The same goes for politics, there was great debate every single time German troops were deployed abroad before ~2010, see eg [1]. But things may be changing, AfD is gaining more and more popular support indicating an uptick in nationalism to me and a stronger feeling of international "importance". [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/28/germans-in-angst-filled-debate-over-troop-deployment-to-somalia/4c80ceed-c7a8-4f8c-99c8-62735251bbdb/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1993/07/28/g...
- scrubs 3y ago
  Japan similarly has been reluctant to re-militarize. The essential question is whether they can now see change is required. Our super power role isn't good for America either (I'm American). We spent too time in the middle east protecting oil, and committed ourselves to stupid wars in Iraq under Bush. Guntanimo Bay and special extradition are grave American errors. I am happy to see that through energy independence we can delink ourselves from the middle east. I am heartened too see new applicants to Nato, which is a defensive force only. Going forward neither European weakness nor American habit of leading should play us into anything other than strategic threats namely China. We have to learn to say no. Once nato partners have a problem on their border we need to compose better and strengthen each other. I'm inclined to agree: better to temporarily prioritize China over getting better European cooperation if push comes to shove. We can't own European risk more than it can itself.
  - riku_iki 3y ago

ctrlp 3y ago

Tell us you know nothing about history without saying you know nothing about history.

reducesuffering 3y ago
Are you trying to say Germany didn't launch both World Wars? Which one are you disputing, when Germany invaded Belgium in 1914 or Germany invading Poland in 1939?
- ctrlp 3y ago
  Germany didn't "launch" WWI. WWI was "launched" by political and revolutionary pressures triggering a complex of alliances in Europe and the Ottoman Empire. WWII had similarly complex causes. It's a ridiculous simplification to lay the blame for launching these wars on one country alone, regardless of how things went.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    There's a lot of apologia for Germany and Austria-Hungary in WW1. But ultimately, Austria-Hungary started the hostilities, shelling Belgrade (cmon), and Germany allied with the aggressor and then also invaded Belgium to get to France. I don't care if you have a "complex alliance" with a clearly aggressive country (Austria-Hungary) invading Serbia. You don't support that period. And Austria-Hungary also invaded Serbia because they had Germany's backing to deal with the repercussions. Russia defending Serbia from invasion and France defending Belgium and themselves isn't an equally culpable standing. 20 million dead. Because Austria-Hungary and Germany invaded other countries. WW2 just further proved that they really were the culpable countries.
    - ctrlp 3y ago
      The original comment stated that Germany was responsible for starting the two World Wars, not Austria. But to describe Austria as "a clearly aggressive country" is totally inadequate to an accurate view of this history. Austria was a declining multi-ethnic empire with internal ethnic conflicts mostly concentrated in the Serbian Nationalist movement. The Serbs were in turn supported (prior to war) by a militarizing Russia (that allied with France) who was in geopolitical competition with Germany for warm-water ports via the Balkans (sound familiar?). If you were leading Germany at that time, you'd be worried about Russia's ambitions, too. You could do a similar analysis of the complexities that precipitated WWII, not least of these was the incredibly punitive conditions of the Treaty of Versailles. Read Keynes' "The Economic Consequences of the Peace" among many other books about how "stupid" that treaty was. Combine that with the incredible street-level social-political instability of the inter-war years, mass migration, Bolshevism, etc... and you might have a more nuanced answer about how wars are started and who is culpable. In any case, moralizing about war and geopolitics is a sort of category error, imho. What would you have had these countries do differently, I wonder?