Live data from Hacker News

If you want peace, study war

persuasion.community

191–200 of 223 posts

Re: If you want peace, study war

#191
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the great wars of history have been instigated by rich countries - modern USA, Nazi Germany / Imperial Japan, Spanish Empire, British Empire, Napoleonic France, Roman Empire. This is my qualitative sense from studying history, and it seems to hold up quantitatively based on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll

I can't speak for the other nations, but Nazi Germany was a very poor country. The standard of living in Germany was relatively bad, in no small part because of the post-war economic turmoil. I submit the first few chapters of Wages of Destruction as my source. I am totally unqualified to summarize it, but it's shock full of data that support this thesis. It's a really good book.

I'd be curious to know more, I'll try to take a look at that book when I get a chance. Are you saying, though, that Nazi Germany was very poor relative to its neighbors (e.g. France, Poland, Italy) or relative to the world at the time (e.g. Mexico) or in an absolute sense (widespread extreme poverty, lack of basic necessities of life)?

Re: If you want peace, study war

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Richer folks also tent to study more and have say more options to expand their mind to various views, cultures and places. Far harder to manipulate/outright brainwash those into some patriotic bullshit about defending your home from those evil bad guys. Unless you force drafts with hard punishments for those avoiding of course, but such an army would have very low morale not only these days.

I guess you aren't in the US because we're possibly at the early stages of a civil war led by a brainwashed bourgeoisie.

A conflict large enough to be classified as a civil war would require a great deal more organization than has occurred so far. At best it was a halfhearted coup attempt by a small group of nothing to lose hysterics under cover of a protest. Not much of a plan other than to cause trouble and maybe kill a target of opportunity.

Now if, for instance, a group of state legislatures and governors decided to meet and elect Trump as president of their own collective splinter nation I would say we'll have ourselves a "Civil War." Though how long it would last is hard to say.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#193
post #170
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but when the leader is a politician, he has skin in a different game: getting re-elected. It doesn’t stop them from going to war, but it makes it less likely.

That is straight up at odds with American (or Canadian, or for the most part, UK) history. In the United States Trump is the first "war-time" president to blow re-election during an active war, and his term was punctuated by attempts at troop draw down, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric towards Iran when he was low in polls. Engaging in something that can be spun as a just war is a viable re-election tactic.

The important part here is that they are forced to actually take the steps of justifying the war to the public and consulting the legislature.

If you have the public’s support for the war, then a war isn’t going to hurt your election chances.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#194
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealthy nations are definitely more likely to engage in war. Especially if there is something to be gained from it. However, I'm not referring to the wealth of the countries themselves, but the concentration of wealth within them. Both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were desperately poor with a starving citizenry. Germany from paying reparations completely devaluing their currency and Japan from a lack of natural re…

Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were major industrial centers with large cities, educated populations, newspapers, trains, etc. They were vastly richer than peasant societies like China or Mexico. For a somewhat objective example, look at the life expectancy around those years ... Japan and especially Germany are near the top both before and after the war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_life..…

To say what I think causes a country to go to war would take a book, and NOT a short one. Causing a war seems depressingly easy. In fact the relative peace we have been living in the past half century is exceedingly unusual.

In this instance, I'm talking about preventing war. A major factor is ensuring that those most responsible for paying for the war in taxes and blood (Lower and middle classes) have the wealth and the power to say no. (Convincing them that NO is the right answer is another thing!)

The wealth of the countries themselves is not necessarily the wealth of the people who live within them. Take a look at the so called "Banana republics."

I don't know exactly what you disagree with in my reasoning or what exactly is ad-hoc but I always love to talk about it.

Now, to address a few of the facts above:

Japan and Germany were both desperately poor following World War I. It was only after significant military expansion that they reached the prosperity you mention above. Japan gained most of their wealth through their expansion during the Showa era and consecutive wars.

Nazi Germany started from the poverty of 1933 with the suspension of civil liberties after the burning of the Reichstag. Their economic success was mostly spurred by efforts to gear up their military. By that point it was too late for any middle class to object and they hardly had the power to avoid being sent to concentration camps.

China makes us all look like pikers when it comes to war. Mao Zedong and the Chinese Nationalist party before him engaged in mass killings to make your blood turn cold. The modern PRC is the result of almost constant wars consolidating the region we now refer to as "China." Before the 20th century, the countries that make up modern China were engaged in almost constant warfare.

As for Mexico, they barely have anyone to go to war with anymore. In fact, part of the reason there is a wall between the US and Mexico in Nogales is because of a war between the two about 100 years ago after World War I.

Mexico seems to mostly be wrapped up in insurrections and criminal organizations lately though. I wouldn't be surprised if some intelligence agency cooked up most of Mexico's problems during the 1960s to keep them weak and it's just been burning since then. Sort of a Cold War toxic waste spill... But that's pure speculation of the quality used in light fiction.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether humans like it or not and whether we want to admit it or not, wars do end up with mostly the fittest (not just in terms of physical ability, but also intelligence, cunning, etc.) surviving.

Wars end up with those best at surviving surviving. The ones best at getting allies to protect them, the ones who keep their children alive even at the cost of thousands of others' lives, the ones who groom an ally to throw themselves on the grenade, the ones who climb the power ladder and then use that power to keep themselves safe from the conflict… War is a terrible selection pressure, if you value the light and g…

Not neceassary it's overall positive. You usually kill best&brightest from oponent side first, so summing over average capability of human population wars can cause regressions.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalistic drive has nothing in common with the real memories of tragedies and horrors of the war.

Agreed. If anything, it serves the opposite: it creates this false glorification image of war as a noble pursuit.

I made a mistake. I was responding to the first commenter's words "The fading of WWII in the public memory could be argued as the biggest single risk that society faces". And in my view, the continued attempts at making people remember the war are a very bad,destructive thing, because they are used to political ends. Will remember next time to quote :)

Re: If you want peace, study war

#197
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalistic drive has nothing in common with the real memories of tragedies and horrors of the war.

You can remember sacrifices as horrors to not be repeated. Or you can remember sacrifices as aspirating thing, the one that motivates you to pick up the gun to go sacrifice yourself, so that you proves your manhood. The latter is what militant regimes do and did.

Thank you, you put it well. That is what I meant.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#198
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is straight up at odds with American (or Canadian, or for the most part, UK) history. In the United States Trump is the first "war-time" president to blow re-election during an active war, and his term was punctuated by attempts at troop draw down, coupled with inflammatory rhetoric towards Iran when he was low in polls. Engaging in something that can be spun as a just war is a viable re-election tactic.

I'm not sure I'd count Trump as a wartime President, though perhaps that's a result of appallingly low standards for what counts as peace.

Yeah, it's sketchy, which is why I put it in quotes. The reason he is not really a war-time president is the only war he is even close to actually starting is a civil war :P

Re: If you want peace, study war

#199
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military did not win the war, at least in Europe. They pottered around in Africa, Italy, and Belgium while the Soviet army won the war. Ten of the ten biggest battles were on the eastern front, while a tiny fraction of axis assets held off the West for years. Western bombing (despite huge losses) had negligible effect on German industrial production, which increased right up to 1945. (US industrial imports to…

The Soviet Union could not have won without US support of arms and materiel. It might have been able to survive in some form by completely abandoning everything east of the Urals. US industrial production was crucial to Soviet survival, not a nice to have. Costly business, dividing up Eastern Europe in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

Russia stopped the Germans by building more than 34000 tanks and sacrificing millions of lives. The US only really entered the war after 4 years of sitting on the side lines. Yes US support of materials to Europe was important but don’t overplay it’s significance. Also, remember that Europe paid for the US materials in gold. The US was basically acting as an arms dealer, with the 2nd world war being a huge business opportunity for US manufacturing, and the direct reason for the US moving ahead of Europe.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#200
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US military did not win the war, at least in Europe. They pottered around in Africa, Italy, and Belgium while the Soviet army won the war. Ten of the ten biggest battles were on the eastern front, while a tiny fraction of axis assets held off the West for years. Western bombing (despite huge losses) had negligible effect on German industrial production, which increased right up to 1945. (US industrial imports to…

Hey, wars are messy business. Usually if there is so much disparity in power that the outcome is known beforehand it does not come to war. US had declared Axis powers to be the enemy and then the enemy was defeated. Nobody questions that US was key to winning WWII. It seems impossible that soviets would hold if Nazi Germany was able to send all their resources to eastern front. Even with the help on the western front…

The US did almost nothing for 4 years, except selling materials to Europe in return for gold. It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. Claiming that the US won the war is BS. The US was part of a large group of countries that won the war, all contributing to defeat the Nazis.
Post reply on HN