this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
261 points (96.8% liked)

World News

38956 readers
1652 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Interesting article that talks about the similarities between now and 1938, and the sort of lessons we can learn from history.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Just out of curiosity, can anyone name one war the US has been involved in since WWII where a high ranking government official did not compare it to WWII to drum up support?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Well for one if you read the article the persons comparing it are the Estonian prime minister and her favorite history professor

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

The reason I specified is that random people may make random comparisons all the time, so if I just said "where people did not compare it" it wouldn't really mean anything. Estonia doesn't tend to have as many wars they need to drum up support for so they don't do it as often, but it's still a greatly overused analogy in general. People said it about Korea. They said it about Vietnam. They said it about Iraq. All of those comparisons were ridiculous in hindsight but worked well enough at the time. It's basically just a go-to thing you can say and people will just knee-jerk get on board with whatever military endeavor you're doing at a given time, regardless of what it is.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

The problem with learning from history is that everyone has their own idea about what those lessons are that we should be learning.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago

I've played that hoi4 scenario as Czechcoslovakia and the only reason it's winnable is because it's a game and the ai makes huge mistakes.

I've been comparing this invasion of ukraine to Czechcoslovakia since almost the start, but there are differences. Not really between the justification or the foreign policy that the Russian government is using. Between the relative strength of Czechcoslovakia v nazi Germany and ukraine v russia. Also between ukraine's negotiated treaties. Ukraine appears stronger than Czechcoslovakia but never obtained a defensive pact with a single other country. The Czechoslovaks had a defensive pact, but it was quickly abandoned. I still see letting them fall as akin to appeasement, some vying for leadership positions have suggested that abandoning defense pacts is justified sometimes. If it's justified sometimes you may try to find a hole to make it justified all the time. All ukraine had been promised was weapons and we may be in a position where we tell ourselves we did our part even if we didn't do enough.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Literally 1938

[–] [email protected] -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (3 children)

How does this argument work, the military spending of the Nazis was insane in the build up to the war, up to 40% in 1939, no such numbers in Russia. Even now it’s just estimated at 10% and they clearly need all of it just to fight the war in Ukraine. How are they ever gonna steamroll Nato with those numbers, there is no tangible proof that they are planning for this.

The Putin is Hitler mantra also doesn’t make any sense, he has been a moderate (all be it an authoritarian) politician for decades, and now he suddenly is the rebirth of Hitler. Just looking at his politics he’s clearly not a fascist.

We’ve been sold that Ukraine can win this war militarily, and the collective west can cripple the Russian economy with sanctions alone. Now that this turns out to be complete BS, they (a subset of western politicians) are looking for a way out, and clearly their preferred way is further escalations. So now they are selling us even more BS to justify this.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago

Russia is already fighting all of NATO in some areas, Ukraine already uses NATO training and aerial reconnaissance/space reconnaissance resources, British troops on the ground perform some of the steps (Ukrainians performing the others) to fire missiles

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I mean the percentages are different, but the argument remains the same, Russia is attacking a sovereign nation and feels they can do it with impunity. Getting access to all of Ukraine's resources helps them rebuild faster and help destabilize the West more since they would be able to affect food supply chains.

Putting being "moderate" is irrelevant (though I didn't agree Putin, who is homophobic is moderate), his similarities are with his actions in attacking a country for personal Gain.

There is no other option to counteract Russian aggression, supporting Ukraine and sanctioning Russia are the major tools the West has. Ukraine can defend themselves but the West has been slow to provide sufficient support, quickly. This stems from Russian influence on the West as well (Republicans warming up to Russia, or things beneficial to them). Sanctions take time, to affect countries. Russia is currently selling oil at discounts and also may have to begin to import more oil. These are all problems for Russia that will continue to get worse.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 4 months ago

If Russia succeeds in occupying Ukraine completely it will take an immense amount of resources to subdue the population, I don’t see why this will be any different than Iraq. Given the current resistance it might even be impossible for Russia to simply occupy Ukraine and extract its resources, this is also probably the reason why they have tried to sue for peace multiple times.

Putin is a moderate in Russian politics, and it is relevant because it means there are ways to negotiate with him.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

May I add: Hitler was largely supported by the youth. Putin is mostly supported by the elderly.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It seems odd to me how the author compares Ukraine to an alternative reality of 1938 imagined by their favorite historian.

Flat comparing 2020s to 1930s is already tenuous enough.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It feels like your dismissing the idea of learning from history.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

Far from it: history is an account of things that happened. Learning from it requires a solid adherence to what is known about what happened.

The value of speculating on alternate timelines is not to learn from the theorized history but to illustrate how interwoven it is with the events of the time.

You can still call that learning from history, but it is a very different avenue of inquiry. I love alternate timelines, and I also respect the limits of their value.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Fast forward to where pooty pants shoots himself in the head in a bunker

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

He argued: “There is one actor that has reorganised its strategic engagement to fight a war and the other has not. One side is not participating in the battle. You have hosted conferences supporting Ukraine and then do nothing more. But when it comes to action, Russia 2.0 is grinding forward.

“It tells countries like us that if something like this were to happen in the Indo-Pacific, you have no chance against China. If you cannot defeat a $2tn nation, don’t think you are deterring China. China is taking hope from your abysmal and dismal performance against a much smaller adversary.”

This, in a nutshell, is where the world is headed ... unless the self-proclaimed defender of democracy (USA) and the EU pull up their britches and start taking Russian aggression seriously.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Step #1 is the hard part: curb-stomping traitors.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

"we have to defeat the undemocratic enemy who murders their internal political opponents, and its important we kill evil traitors within our own nation to do this"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Only the most pernicious among them, and only if we fail to prosecute and imprison them. The rest can be deprogrammed, or, failing that, marginalized.

Just why the fuck do you think we have the 2nd amendment they love so much?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago

I think about this often and it’s very scary

load more comments
view more: next ›