4 ms·
There was, at the time, something of a doublethink going on. Whilst publicly friendly, the U.K. was privately discussing scenarios up to and including invading
by moomin 3y ago
There was, at the time, something of a doublethink going on. Whilst publicly friendly, the U.K. was privately discussing scenarios up to and including invading the USSR (Operation Unthinkable).
However, again, it was wartime. And not one of these wars where your professional army fights far from home against an asymmetrically weaker foe. People tend have fairly negative views of dissenters in that circumstance. Look at what happened in America after 9/11.
- saalweachter 3y ago... after 9/11, when America's professional army fought an asymmetrically weaker foe far from home?
- moomin 3y agoI mean, that was the consequence. The trigger was, I think, the greatest American loss of life on home soil since the Civil War. Imagine what America would have been like if Al-Qaeda had bombed all major cities on a daily basis for years, and the US had won with the help of Iran. I think pointing out reservations with the current regime there would be quite unpopular.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoI think maybe this has happened, some. In many of the recent wars. Afghanistan/Iraq, or even others like Ukraine. The US 'group think' is to not criticize the 'people' of the country. The population is separated from the government. Most media is very pro - "The wonderful people of the country whom surely had nothing to do with the evil government we'd like to see defeated". Criticizing the population is not allowed. Even thought they must have had some influence on their government. Hence how it is very much not allowed to criticize Muslims. Even in Ukraine, it is not allowed to criticize the "Russian People", who surely are with us against their evil government.