4 ms·
Well, see, we learned nearly a century ago that when someone aggressively expands and you give in to them to maintain "peace in our time", you don't get peace f
by AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
Well, see, we learned nearly a century ago that when someone aggressively expands and you give in to them to maintain "peace in our time", you don't get peace for very long. You wind up with more dead bodies, not less.
Fighting when it's needed leads to more dead this week than abject surrender would cause, but if history is any guide, it leads to fewer dead bodies this decade.
- rightbyte 11mo ago"Someone"? Are you alluding to NATO or Russia here in the present? Hard to tell.
- ben_w 11mo ago"peace in our time" is a famous quote, nearly a century ago: https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/30-september/chamberlain-declares-peace-in-our-time https://www.history.co.uk/this-day-in-history/30-september/c... What AnimalMuppet shows with the failure of "peace in our time" is how speaking softly only works in combination with a big stick, to paraphrase a different politician from a different continent around a generation earlier than "peace in our time".
- rightbyte 11mo agoYes I know. The question is who they aimed at in the current day context.
- leobg 11mo agoWrong lesson from history. Go a bit further back. WW1. It’s easy to talk about “never appease an aggressor” when its someone else’s kid. Now it’s a story arch. Good vs evil. Entertainment! Like sports. You pick your team. But from the comfort of your tv, of course.