Grizzly~Adams
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Passion of Christ, do you people have lives?
Most of my term papers aren't even that long.
Most of my term papers aren't even that long.
lessons of World War 2?
- Thread starter Executioner
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
bob_the_rambler
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
no life, just death and darkness............... this post is the product of a group of fallout JUNKIES
me very much included
me very much included
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Yes, America is civilised because Europe and especially Britain is it's 'father'. The first world is advanced, civilised and completely inerconnected.
There will be no world war originating in Europe because they are well educated and do not want a war to happen again. The reasons for the first world war occuring where out of date ideas of conquest and nationalism. It was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.
World War II happened almost as a direct result of the depression and the Treaty of Versailles but really it was still motivated by the same out-dated ideas. World War II should never have happened but the lack of 'good' globalisation, conservatism and nationalism allowed it to.
'Learning from the mistakes' carried over twice from the 19th century is foolish. Get over it. The lessons of the war are of little use to the modern man. Thinking in the past such as we are doing is the reason for the wars in the first place.
Only the crazed developing countries will cause a large war and the international community to intervene and make peace.
The norm was set by all the western countries as people became more aware and mature about the consequences of war. Why do you think there is so much opposition to the war in Iraq for example. War is just too expensive in money and human life and we allknow it and will fight against it in the advanced countires of the west.
Get over the past!!!!
There will be no world war originating in Europe because they are well educated and do not want a war to happen again. The reasons for the first world war occuring where out of date ideas of conquest and nationalism. It was a 19th century war fought with 20th century weapons.
World War II happened almost as a direct result of the depression and the Treaty of Versailles but really it was still motivated by the same out-dated ideas. World War II should never have happened but the lack of 'good' globalisation, conservatism and nationalism allowed it to.
'Learning from the mistakes' carried over twice from the 19th century is foolish. Get over it. The lessons of the war are of little use to the modern man. Thinking in the past such as we are doing is the reason for the wars in the first place.
Only the crazed developing countries will cause a large war and the international community to intervene and make peace.
The norm was set by all the western countries as people became more aware and mature about the consequences of war. Why do you think there is so much opposition to the war in Iraq for example. War is just too expensive in money and human life and we allknow it and will fight against it in the advanced countires of the west.
Get over the past!!!!
And that's exactly what was being said in the interbellum as well. (interbellum=period between WW1 and WW2).
No, depression, manipulation, nationalism and a fucked up treaty of versailles allowed it to. Not globalisation and conservatism.
Yet we have NOT learned from our mistakes. When intervention eventually came in the Balkans, it was already too late.
Again: Not true. The developing countries cannot cause a war, because they don't have the resources to. If any country is going to initiate a large-scale war, it will HAVE to be a first-world country.
And again: This was exactly what was being said in the interbellum. Remember Chamberlain.
Yes, for one I am of the opinion that nationalists should be shot on sight. Would save a lot of trouble.
Of course. The Easter Bunny, for one.
Impaling it would be far better.
Impaling it would be far better.
quietfanatic
Ancient One
Sander said:
Forgive my hurried post. What I mean by globalisation is that the interconnected political, cultural and economic nature of Western countries will prevent another world war from occurring. If we had a depression today, everyone would take share of the problems and no power bloc would be isolated. There would be mutual support. This is one of the positive consequences of having powerful multinationals. We do not want to invade our neighbors who we already either own, or are heavily reliant on economically. Nearly all our manufacturing is done in the third world but the companies are based in the US and Europe.
A figure like Hitler would be exiled to Antarctica to preach to the penguins or smoothed down by media spindoctors into insignificance. Extreme ideals cannot survive in a moderate society so the conservatives' extreme fear of communism would be dispelled by the presence of the reassuringly stable left wing parties of today. We do not have large conservative groups who wish to see the glory of past days resurrected and put a new Kaiser type figure put in power. We care about the future not the past.
Yay, then there will be relative peace on Earth.
He was wrong, they were not advanced (and cynical) enough and didn't bank on a psychopath like Hitler emerging. We are civilised and truly modern and will therefore stop such a disaster from happening for a long, long time to come (well atleast until the oil runs out anyway).
I am usually very cynical but show some hope for humanity.
Right, suuuure. You're wrong, buddy. IMagine this: The muslim fundamentalist states rally togethe behind one flag: that of Al-Qaeda. They start small, terrorizing the USA and other Western countries, and the reaction of the USA (one of aggression) causes more animosity to appear. SLowly but surely, a chain-reaction is starting that might very well cause another world war.
That's not doom-thinking, that's realism.
Oh, goddamnit man. That is, again, EXACTLY what was being said back then. And you talk about learning from the mistakes of the past? Pah!
welsh
Junkmaster
The reasons for World War 1 and World War 2 are commonly attributed to nationalism, Hitler, imperialism, conquest. During that period war was seen as a more appropriate means of statcraft than today.
But you guys are giving a lot of credit to individual will and choice while you might want to consider structure.
Arguably, the reason why Germany was willing to go war when it did twice had to do with it's own view of armaments and the danger of Russia. Germany, a late developer, saw danger to the East.. Before World War 1 the Russians had undertaken a militarization campaign that would, if completed, have made it one of the strongest militaries in Europe. Hitler times the beginning of World War 2 because he is also concerned with Soviet military build ups.
If you look at Hitler's speeches one theme comes up- The Communists are a threat and eventually will become more powerful than us. We must defeat them before they destroy us.
That motivation was consistent in Germany prior to both wars. The trick here is a matter of timing. THere were a number of Balkans Crises in which Austria wanted to intervene, but Germany holds them back until 1914. Likewise, Hitler's arms build up is not complete by the time he initiates war and he begins it anyway because he knows time is not on his side and that if he waits for the armament program to finish, it will be too late.
Not surprisingly, it is primarily the Soviets that deserve credit for defeating Hitler, not because of superior tactics but because of superior numbers. The Germans are overwhelmed on the Eastern Front.
The reason for World War 1 and 2 had more to do with balances of power and perceptions of threat. Germany, the strong power, saw a rise in Russia as a threat to its existence. France allied with Russia because Germany was the closer threat and because the French and Germans had regular diplomatic disputes. The Brits were constantly trying to balance- in fact at one point the Brits thought the French were the bigger threat to European peace than the Germans.
Sander makes a good point- given the nature of Europe today we should not expect to see a rise of a nationalist or strong leader with autocratic tendencies. But what if Europe was threatened? What if there was a financial crisis that impacted the different parts of Europe distinctly? What if there was an external threat or opportunity that pulled at the different states of Europe?
We often blame World War 2 for Hitler, say that he was a psycho. But Hitler came to power because conditions allowed him to do so. No one comes to lead a nation without outside backing or support. Unless we are to say all the Germans were psychos, we deny the danger of another strong dictator coming to power.
I agree, the currents of nationalism in Europe is a danger to peace. It was, in part nationalism, that was the achilles heel of the Soviet Union, because they had one nation leading the entire union, and the other "countries" wanted out. Building a union over different nationalities is not easy, especially if those national identities are strong.
Should there be another crisis and the states of Europe see themselves less as a union than as a community of autonomous entities, you could have the danger of disunity. If Europe becomes disunified, then I think you also increase the dangers of war.
But you guys are giving a lot of credit to individual will and choice while you might want to consider structure.
Arguably, the reason why Germany was willing to go war when it did twice had to do with it's own view of armaments and the danger of Russia. Germany, a late developer, saw danger to the East.. Before World War 1 the Russians had undertaken a militarization campaign that would, if completed, have made it one of the strongest militaries in Europe. Hitler times the beginning of World War 2 because he is also concerned with Soviet military build ups.
If you look at Hitler's speeches one theme comes up- The Communists are a threat and eventually will become more powerful than us. We must defeat them before they destroy us.
That motivation was consistent in Germany prior to both wars. The trick here is a matter of timing. THere were a number of Balkans Crises in which Austria wanted to intervene, but Germany holds them back until 1914. Likewise, Hitler's arms build up is not complete by the time he initiates war and he begins it anyway because he knows time is not on his side and that if he waits for the armament program to finish, it will be too late.
Not surprisingly, it is primarily the Soviets that deserve credit for defeating Hitler, not because of superior tactics but because of superior numbers. The Germans are overwhelmed on the Eastern Front.
The reason for World War 1 and 2 had more to do with balances of power and perceptions of threat. Germany, the strong power, saw a rise in Russia as a threat to its existence. France allied with Russia because Germany was the closer threat and because the French and Germans had regular diplomatic disputes. The Brits were constantly trying to balance- in fact at one point the Brits thought the French were the bigger threat to European peace than the Germans.
Sander makes a good point- given the nature of Europe today we should not expect to see a rise of a nationalist or strong leader with autocratic tendencies. But what if Europe was threatened? What if there was a financial crisis that impacted the different parts of Europe distinctly? What if there was an external threat or opportunity that pulled at the different states of Europe?
We often blame World War 2 for Hitler, say that he was a psycho. But Hitler came to power because conditions allowed him to do so. No one comes to lead a nation without outside backing or support. Unless we are to say all the Germans were psychos, we deny the danger of another strong dictator coming to power.
I agree, the currents of nationalism in Europe is a danger to peace. It was, in part nationalism, that was the achilles heel of the Soviet Union, because they had one nation leading the entire union, and the other "countries" wanted out. Building a union over different nationalities is not easy, especially if those national identities are strong.
Should there be another crisis and the states of Europe see themselves less as a union than as a community of autonomous entities, you could have the danger of disunity. If Europe becomes disunified, then I think you also increase the dangers of war.