What's The Real Lesson of WWII? (Romans, European, Russian, slave)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The lesson for me is that a policy of appeasement does not work, for the US the lesson should be that a policy of thinking that what happens "over there" does not impact us here does not work.
Rather, the lesson is that there are some horrible regimes one can live with and some with which there is no living.
From the point of view of the West, Germany was the latter, specifically because it (mostly, Hitler) did not respond to normal norms of deterrence. On the other hand, the horrible regime of the Stalinist USSR did respond to such norms, so while the West chose not to contest the annexation of the Baltics and the making of eastern Europe into a bloc of puppet states, the long-term policy of containment worked.
Really, the lesson is one of selectively picking one's battles. From the perspective of the United States, war with Germany was a battle worth picking. Yes, I know Germany declared war first, but they had no means to bring it on any significant level to the United States, so the option of just ignoring them was there. But we did not. On the other hand, the rather insane notion of Operation Unthinkable, and thereby war with the Soviets, was rejected. One can blithely dismiss Yalta as the appeasement of Stalin if one wants, but that generally is not done as it does not square with the desired appeasement narrative. So in the end, 'appeasement' becomes defined as a lack of response-in-kind to aggression only in those instances where a non-preferable outcome was the result, but where a preferable outcome eventually resulted (ie, the end of the Cold War and the utter collapse of the Soviet bloc as the end product of simply waiting out - containing - the USSR) the term 'appeasement' is not applied for no discernible reason other than to uphold the "Appeasement always fails!" slogan.
These lessons were heeded in 1991. They were not in 2003 - at least, not by the people making the final decisions.
The "good guys" (USA and UK) were regularly and directly targeting civilians and murdered hundreds of thousands of women, children and elderly people... all noncombatants who had nothing to do with the choices of their leaders. The Soviets thoughtlessly sacrificed millions of their own people in their efforts to push back Germany with a strategy that was basically like giving every other fireman a half-full bucket of water and sending hundreds of them into a burning skyscraper. Even the Nazis didn't start purposefully murdering millions at full-speed until later in the war when it started to become more obvious that they might actually loose. On an individual level who know how many more millions of people were left scarred and emotionally ruined by the experience, both from loosing loved ones and doing the killing.
WW2 was the single most destructive human experience of all time... but humanity seems determined to go play the game of Total War again, only this time with infinitely more destructive weapons.
Bad idea... VERY bad idea. If we could only feel the level of pain, the senselessness, the waste and downright stupidity of the whole affair instead of buying into the "Guts and glory, struggle for good vs evil" B.S. narrative... maybe we wouldn't be so anxious to ignite WWIII.
Rather, the lesson is that there are some horrible regimes one can live with and some with which there is no living....
........ So in the end, 'appeasement' becomes defined as a lack of response-in-kind to aggression only in those instances where a non-preferable outcome was the result, but where a preferable outcome eventually resulted (ie, the end of the Cold War and the utter collapse of the Soviet bloc as the end product of simply waiting out - containing - the USSR) the term 'appeasement' is not applied for no discernible reason other than to uphold the "Appeasement always fails!" slogan.
I mean, the simple version is a crazy guy gets power, is "evil" and the good guys win. After seeing the death camps, it's easy to buy that.
But, while the man in charge was nuts, he was not so nuts as to lose. After all, he was winning for a long time both at home and abroad. He had the country doing sophisticated science, he had the manufacturers cranking out hardware, he was at the forefront of science and tech for that time.
As I understand it, he thought the bankers would pay for messing with Germans. And since the bankers were Jews, he took special measures to harm that group.
Now, if he was so smart as to come to power and march down and take over his neighbors, how could he have been so stupid? Let's say he was correct that some people had a conspiracy to destroy the labor of nations, how does the poor little Jewish girl of some small town take the fall for them?
While we might like to think we are the good guys, we didn't care- our companies helped the Germans. We knew something was going on because after all people talk. We had spies over there. We did business over there. Look at Syria this very day. There is no doubt what they did was wrong, but I find it hard to believe there was not more compelling evidence to genocide than the crazy thoughts of some guy.
Therefore, what is the lesson of Germany's defeat? That Christianity won? That Bolshevism won? That labor lost? That genocide can be committed by smart people? That the conspiracy was legit and it won?
Until we know what they were really doing, how can we know the lesson of that war?
I mean, the simple version is a crazy guy gets power, is "evil" and the good guys win. After seeing the death camps, it's easy to buy that.
But, while the man in charge was nuts, he was not so nuts as to lose. After all, he was winning for a long time both at home and abroad. He had the country doing sophisticated science, he had the manufacturers cranking out hardware, he was at the forefront of science and tech for that time.
As I understand it, he thought the bankers would pay for messing with Germans. And since the bankers were Jews, he took special measures to harm that group.
Now, if he was so smart as to come to power and march down and take over his neighbors, how could he have been so stupid? Let's say he was correct that some people had a conspiracy to destroy the labor of nations, how does the poor little Jewish girl of some small town take the fall for them?
While we might like to think we are the good guys, we didn't care- our companies helped the Germans. We knew something was going on because after all people talk. We had spies over there. We did business over there. Look at Syria this very day. There is no doubt what they did was wrong, but I find it hard to believe there was not more compelling evidence to genocide than the crazy thoughts of some guy.
Therefore, what is the lesson of Germany's defeat? That Christianity won? That Bolshevism won? That labor lost? That genocide can be committed by smart people? That the conspiracy was legit and it won?
Until we know what they were really doing, how can we know the lesson of that war?
One of the lessons was that you don't impoverish a nation with unreasonable debt repayments and then expect them to be nice about it.
While I appreciate the tongue in cheek nature of your link, I may as well point out that Russia has been whupped a couple of times.
And today, The Ruskies are in deep Ka-Ka. They have lost 15 million people over the last 25 years or so due to a very low birth rate, and there is no sign that that trend is reversing. They are down to 148 million people. They ain't exactly got an immigration problem.
We all used to think the Russians had advanced weaponry until Gulf War II. That's when the USA starting lighting up Russian tanks that couldn't even see our guys, let alone hit 'em.
Tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, nuclear power plants; they've all proved to be empty shells. Russia is just big, that's all.
Lets be realistic here, and not stand on the hill pounding our chests, as Kinds of the Hill. Lets also not forget that we have had our hats handed to us too, and not going to get into who shot john and why. Just recently in Iraq, a rag tag Militia with AKs and RPGs fought us (most modern Army in the World) to a standstill several times. We had to make a Truce with their leader and pay Tribal leaders not to kill our guys. The good old "Surge" that they claimed worked. Yep, a surge of payoffs. And, all this, with no Air Force, No Navy, No armor, and no Sophisticated Weaponry. Now, we are still chasing guys like this in rocks and hills, armed with the same outdated weapons. Heck, I am armed better than one of these clowns. The Taliban.
Yep, Maybe Russia has been "whupped" several times, one being Afghanistan, where we will fare no better in the end, and do what they did. Get out. (see Iraq) (see Vietnam) (see Somalia)
Yep, the Russians have economic problems, and we don't ?? The economy is struggling, we have millions sneaking into our Country, and the Middle Class is being trampled in the dirt. I would not throw to many comments about others being in deep do-do. You don't need many people to program MIRVs and push buttons.
Evidently you haven't been paying attention to what Russia has as Sophisticated Weapons. Do you seriously believe the Russian would equip their puppet unstable third World Countries with their best weaponry? Maybe you should do some research on Russian Weapons. None of their Modern Tanks saw any action in Iraq or the Middle East. In fact, the US Abrams is NOT the best Battle Tank found on a Battlefield. South Korea holds that spot, and our Tank does not even rate in the top 5 Tanks. Also, None of their sophisticated Air Defense Systems where used. They also did not have Electronic Warfare devices that can shut down our most advanced fire control systems, which they do now. This isn't the WW2 era, and they would not be waging a War with those same weapons from WW2. That's what they give away, and that's what we faced.
Any War with Russia, be it Conventional or Nuclear would not go well for anyone, and "whupping" the other guy would not save your butt either. No one enjoys a Victory, while they are sitting in rubble, glowing in the dark. Only a fool would think there could be a winner.
Lets be realistic here, and not stand on the hill pounding our chests, as Kinds of the Hill. Lets also not forget that we have had our hats handed to us too, and not going to get into who shot john and why. Just recently in Iraq, a rag tag Militia with AKs and RPGs fought us (most modern Army in the World) to a standstill several times. We had to make a Truce with their leader and pay Tribal leaders not to kill our guys. The good old "Surge" that they claimed worked. Yep, a surge of payoffs. And, all this, with no Air Force, No Navy, No armor, and no Sophisticated Weaponry. Now, we are still chasing guys like this in rocks and hills, armed with the same outdated weapons. Heck, I am armed better than one of these clowns. The Taliban.
Yep, Maybe Russia has been "whupped" several times, one being Afghanistan, where we will fare no better in the end, and do what they did. Get out. (see Iraq) (see Vietnam) (see Somalia)
Yep, the Russians have economic problems, and we don't ?? The economy is struggling, we have millions sneaking into our Country, and the Middle Class is being trampled in the dirt. I would not throw to many comments about others being in deep do-do. You don't need many people to program MIRVs and push buttons.
Evidently you haven't been paying attention to what Russia has as Sophisticated Weapons. Do you seriously believe the Russian would equip their puppet unstable third World Countries with their best weaponry? Maybe you should do some research on Russian Weapons. None of their Modern Tanks saw any action in Iraq or the Middle East. In fact, the US Abrams is NOT the best Battle Tank found on a Battlefield. South Korea holds that spot, and our Tank does not even rate in the top 5 Tanks. Also, None of their sophisticated Air Defense Systems where used. They also did not have Electronic Warfare devices that can shut down our most advanced fire control systems, which they do now. This isn't the WW2 era, and they would not be waging a War with those same weapons from WW2. That's what they give away, and that's what we faced.
Any War with Russia, be it Conventional or Nuclear would not go well for anyone, and "whupping" the other guy would not save your butt either. No one enjoys a Victory, while they are sitting in rubble, glowing in the dark. Only a fool would think there could be a winner.
The original subject was WW II, and some comments were made about Russia.
Maybe you should start another thread about modern day Russia. Try "current events".
Homo sapiens have not advanced as far in the process of evolution as we would like to believe. That goes for war and violence in general.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What's The Real Lesson of WWII?
