3 ms·

So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to

So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.

johng 2y ago
Nukes. People are afraid of provoking him too much to where he uses nukes. It's that simple.
- libertine 2y ago
  So everyone will be bound to a psychopath because he has the world hostage under the threat of nuclear destruction. That ain't much of a world worth living in, now is it?
  - saikia81 2y ago
    The suffering of the few keeps the many safe. This is not a solution, but a reality as old as the existence of mayor destructive power. Mass weapons of destruction have just changed the scale of the game. We have never been closer to the great filter.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
hollerith 2y ago
I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not result in an attack or a loss of territory or any other persistent negative outcome as far as I know. If I had been a citizen of Finland or Austria during the relevant decades, I think I would've been angry if my government had decided against appeasing the Soviet Union. The strategic situation has changed, and now it is no longer necessary for Finland to appease the dictator to the east.
- libertine 2y ago
  > I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions. The documents are: - UN Charter - Helsinki Accords - Charter of Paris for a New Europe - Russia–NATO Founding Act If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin, including not joining NATO, I don't know. And it would be great if you could share some sources on this information because it made me curious. I'm finding it hard to believe Finland was on a tight leash from Russia (especially because they rebuilt and maintained their military without restrictions).
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin . . . That is not what I said: I said Finland and Austria appeased the Soviets in the ways I described from 1945 to at least 1990.
    - libertine 2y ago
      I see what you're saying. But as I stated, the world changed, and Russia (and even the USSR) changed during that period and signed the documents to marked such change. Going back in time just because "Russia has nukes" doesn't seem like a very viable option - not to mention that others also have nukes.

So, a world where people forgot about History and the outcomes of appeasing dictators, and all that was achieved with the UN was pointless, so let's go back to a time of military expansionism.

johng 2y ago

Nukes. People are afraid of provoking him too much to where he uses nukes. It's that simple.

libertine 2y ago
So everyone will be bound to a psychopath because he has the world hostage under the threat of nuclear destruction. That ain't much of a world worth living in, now is it?
- saikia81 2y ago
  The suffering of the few keeps the many safe. This is not a solution, but a reality as old as the existence of mayor destructive power. Mass weapons of destruction have just changed the scale of the game. We have never been closer to the great filter.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

hollerith 2y ago

I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Finland and Austria for example definitely appeased the dictator Stalin and his successor dictators for decades. They were careful not to join NATO or the EU. They consulted the dictator (or an authorized underling) on all defense decisions. Finland encouraged trade ties with the dictator's country. These decades of appeasement did not result in an attack or a loss of territory or any other persistent negative outcome as far as I know. If I had been a citizen of Finland or Austria during the relevant decades, I think I would've been angry if my government had decided against appeasing the Soviet Union. The strategic situation has changed, and now it is no longer necessary for Finland to appease the dictator to the east.

libertine 2y ago
> I don't think the verdict of "History" is as clear as you seem to think it is. Well, I think it is - because the verdict was documents signed by Russia that stated clearly that each country is entitled to its own sovereignty, territorial integrity, foreign policy, alliances, and strategic decisions. The documents are: - UN Charter - Helsinki Accords - Charter of Paris for a New Europe - Russia–NATO Founding Act If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin, including not joining NATO, I don't know. And it would be great if you could share some sources on this information because it made me curious. I'm finding it hard to believe Finland was on a tight leash from Russia (especially because they rebuilt and maintained their military without restrictions).
- hollerith 2y ago
  >If Finland made their strategic decisions to appease Putin . . . That is not what I said: I said Finland and Austria appeased the Soviets in the ways I described from 1945 to at least 1990.
  - libertine 2y ago
    I see what you're saying. But as I stated, the world changed, and Russia (and even the USSR) changed during that period and signed the documents to marked such change. Going back in time just because "Russia has nukes" doesn't seem like a very viable option - not to mention that others also have nukes.