Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you want peace, study war

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 223 posts

Re: If you want peace, study war

#211

Post by lmilcin »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #210
deterministic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Four years? Counting how? War in Europe began in September 1939. So the US didn't do anything until September 1943? Bull. (I mean, I guess they didn't land in Europe until Italy, which was 1943. But even though it wasn't in Europe, they were still fighting Germany in Africa in 1942.) > It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. German mi…

Exactly. I was brought up in Poland during communist rule and even then nobody claimed US wasn't key to winning the war.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#212

Post by N1H1L »

mhh__ wrote: post #89
arethuza wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is another example where if things had been left purely to the militaries of both sides things would probably have escalated very badly.

LeMay wanted to bomb Cuba immediately... One thing that I cannot find a second citation for but really intrigued me is that there is apparently some kind of parallel-narrative around the double agent Oleg Penkovsky - at first glance he gave information to the west about the situation in Cuba, but on closer inspection some of his antics may be too good to be true (he apparently made it in and out of the Soviet Union a…

Thanks for that name. I went down a rabbit hole, and found out that the double agent who blew his handler's cover - George Blake died less than a month back!

Re: If you want peace, study war

#213

Post by mhh__ »

N1H1L wrote: post #212
mhh__ wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LeMay wanted to bomb Cuba immediately... One thing that I cannot find a second citation for but really intrigued me is that there is apparently some kind of parallel-narrative around the double agent Oleg Penkovsky - at first glance he gave information to the west about the situation in Cuba, but on closer inspection some of his antics may be too good to be true (he apparently made it in and out of the Soviet Union a…

Thanks for that name. I went down a rabbit hole, and found out that the double agent who blew his handler's cover - George Blake died less than a month back!

I didn't realize he'd died. Good riddance, but still.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#214

Post by ncmncm »

lmilcin wrote: post #180
bluGill wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was a joint effort. To claim any single entity won alone is wrong. There are alternate history questions, but they will never be conclusive.

Well, every one of those entities won. Do you want to say nobody actually won the war? In a sense it is true, but not in the sense we are talking about.

What we are after is who, if anybody, was responsible for a clear majority of the total effective engagement of Axis forces.

On that question, it is dead clear that the Soviets were, and by a huge margin.

Did US and British troops contribute? Yes. Did P-51s and P-38s help clear the skies of effective German air power? Sure. Would the outcome have been notably different without them? Probably not.

The biggest single setback for Germany, driving deep into original German territory, happened while the US and Britain were pinned down in Belgium and Southern France by a tiny fraction of German assets. Without, the war might have gone on for up to another year, and the Soviets would have ended up owning all of Europe and, probably, Africa. We must be satisfied that that did not happen.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#215

Post by robin21 »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #106
robin21 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wars only start if we let them, and then stop when we take an interest. The US wasn't always a powerful military force. It became this way after WWII. So no, it wasn't the case then, but yes, it is pretty much the case today. Every country knows that they cannot win a traditional war against the US - so the OPs point is correct here. It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most po…

>It's just lucky that the US is not imperialistic. Imagine if China was the most powerful militarily. Another jaw dropping example of American exceptionalism. Look at your link, notice how we call the start of the PRC the "loss of China?" Any country not under our economic and political dominion is labeled the enemy

Lost to communism. And what happened next under Mao involved a lot of loss shall we say.

I think a great many Chinese would have preferred America intervene if they knew what that 50s had in store for them.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#216

Post by Scramblejams »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #57
Scramblejams wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

when you can just trade Peacetime commerce requires free waterways. Everyone can "just trade" because the U.S. Navy has guaranteed free navigation of the seas since Bretton Woods[1]. When America withdraws from its security obligations, others will fill the vacuum, with all the uncertainty that implies. A national leader who fears being cut off from essential resources will very logically view war as an option. Edit:…

To be fair, the US doesn't exactly keep out uncertainty or anything like that. US military policy is subject to the whims of the current management - and no one can really expect the US to keep any sort of agreements at this point. Not only that, but enforcement seems to be more aimed at trying to show strength (ships in china seas) or sanctions, and less on making sure folks can trade or have safety. I'd argue that…

the US doesn't exactly keep out uncertainty

Sure it does. Every dictator knows that if he builds up a little navy to extract advantage over his neighbors by claiming sea lanes, there's a good chance he'll get smacked down by the world's largest navy. Navies are expensive to build, and this threat keeps most (exception: China) from even trying. That creates certainty for shippers, their customers, their insurance companies, and the economies in which they operate.

no one can really expect the US to keep any sort of agreements

To the extent you're correct, national leaders will feel the need to build up their own navies. If the US isn't going to protect their sea lanes, they will be forced to take on that responsibility themselves.

most countries aren't interested in warring

Most. What about the others? All it takes is one bully in your neighborhood to cause serious problems. Will the enlightened nations of the world come to your rescue? Maybe. Maybe not. It may cost you.

The organizations set up at Bretton Woods would be in place even if the US fails completely.

Bretton Woods is an agreement, and an agreement is only as good as its enforcement. Free global trade can only happen as long as someone enforces it, by keeping those sea lanes open. When the US withdraws, how long before a country decides it can exploit that insecurity to its advantage?

I do not share your optimism.

If the US cedes the sea, every other oceangoing nation will be forced to build up its navy to preserve its trade security. More armed ships at sea under more flags will lead to more flashpoints, more clashes, and more opportunities for small conflicts to spin out of control.

Withdrawing from the sea may turn out to be the smart move for the US, but I believe it will portend bad things for the rest of the world.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#217

Post by mbrodersen »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #210
deterministic wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Four years? Counting how? War in Europe began in September 1939. So the US didn't do anything until September 1943? Bull. (I mean, I guess they didn't land in Europe until Italy, which was 1943. But even though it wasn't in Europe, they were still fighting Germany in Africa in 1942.) > It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. German mi…

So you agree that it took 4 years before the US entered the war in Europe. And yes I am probably wrong about the 23 million. It doesn’t change my conclusion though: the US spent 4 years on the side line selling weapons to Europe, and only joined the war after most of the German war machine was defeated.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#218

Post by ncmncm »

mbrodersen wrote: post #217
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four years? Counting how? War in Europe began in September 1939. So the US didn't do anything until September 1943? Bull. (I mean, I guess they didn't land in Europe until Italy, which was 1943. But even though it wasn't in Europe, they were still fighting Germany in Africa in 1942.) > It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. German mi…

So you agree that it took 4 years before the US entered the war in Europe . And yes I am probably wrong about the 23 million. It doesn’t change my conclusion though: the US spent 4 years on the side line selling weapons to Europe, and only joined the war after most of the German war machine was defeated.

Entering the war while Germany and Russia were on the same side would have been fatal, and might even have prevented or delayed their fission.

Staying out long after the split, while Germany and Russia gored one another, was clearly the wiser course. Entering before the Soviets could subdue Germany and overrun western Europe was necessary. But any claim that the US had any sort of primary role in defeating Germany remains nonsense.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#219

Post by AnimalMuppet »

mbrodersen wrote: post #217
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Four years? Counting how? War in Europe began in September 1939. So the US didn't do anything until September 1943? Bull. (I mean, I guess they didn't land in Europe until Italy, which was 1943. But even though it wasn't in Europe, they were still fighting Germany in Africa in 1942.) > It only joined the war after Europeans had already killed more than 23 million Germans, and destroyed most of its military. German mi…

So you agree that it took 4 years before the US entered the war in Europe . And yes I am probably wrong about the 23 million. It doesn’t change my conclusion though: the US spent 4 years on the side line selling weapons to Europe, and only joined the war after most of the German war machine was defeated.

If you consider the entire North Africa campaign to be "the sidelines" I suppose. I completely disagree with your conclusions, though, because I completely disagree that North Africa was "the sidelines", even with respect to Europe. What were they doing in North Africa? Killing Germans. Was that "selling weapons to Europe", or was it more than that? I claim that it was much more.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#220

Post by foxyv »

nicbou wrote: post #187
jhpriestley wrote: post #181

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.

Totally buying that book now. One of my most memorable classes back in college was Economics of War. While I'm sure Economics isn't the only reason for wars, it seems to be one of the big ones.
Post reply on HN