6th Generation Stealth Fighter: Joint Effort by UK, Japan, Italy and Sweden?

> Germany is pretty much the go to case. They lost WW1, then the American hegemony financially repressed Germany through external debt so they had a pretty good reason to start a new war.

I have no idea who teaches this version of history, but it's like saying that the US Civil War started because of States's rights.

The German economy was in full swing by the time WW2 started and Germany had already shrugged off all of its post-WW1 commitments.

The causes of WW2 are complex, but they're well understood today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

One major cause is that Hitler came to power. He did take advantage of the bad economy, but that was one rung on the ladder to power, one of the first. He knew he wouldn't get far with it alone, that's why he also recruited the stabbed in the back theory. Ludendorff and Hindenburg were the big promoters of the stabbed in the back theory, because, as the former military leaders of the German Empire in WW1, it shielded them from the consequences of their defeat. Ludendorff elevated Hitler politically and basically saved his life in the Putsch. Then Hindenburg got rid of all controls and gave Hitler total power. If it wasn't for Ludendorff and Hindenburg Hitler wouldn't have risen to some power and then had the keys to Germany handed to him.

Another important cause comes from how the other powers dealt with Hitler. They let him run amok, threaten war, and get his way, time and time again. Until they drew an arbitrary line in the sand (Poland) that didn't make a lot of sense for anyone. Hitler didn't think it was as a big a deal to invade Poland as France and Britain.

Stalin and the USSR contributed to starting WW2, it's not clear that Hitler would have invaded Poland if there hadn't been a treaty with the USSR.

And of course, another key cause of what we know as WW2 is the collapse of France. The war would likely have been contained and Hitler might even have been quickly defeated. That is its own complex topic.

But no. WW2 didn't happen because of economic oppression by the victors of WW1, just like the US Civil War didn't happen because of state's rights.

It's not me I'm enquiring about, or the history of China and Britain.

I'm advocating investing in peace.

You seem to be saying the bad guys were bent on taking over the world, so the good guys were justified in going to war to stop them.

If it were that simple, war would be inevitable, and killing all the bad guys would fix the problem once and for all.

But the history of conflict is more complicated than that, and you know it. That's why you declined to state the facts you know about Hong Kong, which was a part of a sovereign nation that was invaded by foreign powers and held hostage.

I'm not saying the suppression of freedom in Hong Kong is 2021 is a good thing. If you put it in to context, it is a tit for a 100 year old tat, that was proceeded by the Opium Wars, which I'm happy to discuss with you further, but we'd achieve more by talking about peace.

How do we put an end to infinite rounds of tit for tat that escalate into violence and destruction?

We started off talking about Vietnam, which today is a Communist nation that hosts tourists from all over the western world, as charmingly and enthusiastically as its former coloniser, France.

How can that be?

Why isn't Vietnam full of retribution for the deaths and mayhem wrought on it by foreign powers?

If we investigate that, and have the courage to re-think history back to the point where we invaded that country to kill communists so as to promote freedom, what might we learn?

I don't know the answer, because we haven't done the investigation, which would cost a few million and take a few years. Those millions haven't been allocated by any western nation, but their collective budgets for war is in the trillions every year.

Why is that? If we start with that question, we'll be on the way to developing tools for peace.

What even are "tools for peace"?

You might be interested to ask Chuck Feeney. He's no communist. He's an American businessman who made billions out of Duty Free Shopping in Hong Kong. Chuck invented the whole category of Duty Free Shopping at airports, an art he pioneered and mastered.

What did he do with those billions? Well, he didn't buy any Mazerattis, Ferraris, Teslas, penthouses, yachts, movie studios or rocket ships. Those things didn't interest him. The guy was more interested in a different form of happiness, and so he spent the fruits of capitalism chasing peace.

https://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/insights/insights-boo...

https://layingfoundationsforchange.org/region/viet-nam/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2020/09/15/exclus...

If that were the case, the US would form a mitary alliance with Taiwan, including mutual defence like say Nato. Instead the US maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" over whether and how much it would interfere were the PRC to try for "reunification" the hard way.

The key word here is "easily" lets examine your examples:

- Miloshevich thought that by controlling the Yugoslav army he could easily beat the seceding states. Wrong, but at the beginning it certainly looked that way.

- NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. A collapsing state that was doing genocide. Drop a few bombs to destroy their will to fight in Kosovo and let the Kosovars take over and do the heavy fighting. It was an easy war from the NATO POV! Is NATO reacting the same way when Russia does the same as Serbia?

- US Iraq wars - isolated country that had outdated weaponry. The US did win them easily. At least the conventional part, but they underestimated the amount of nation-building that is needed.

- Hitler was used to appeasement, had a deal with Stalin (Molotov-Ribentrop) and knew that France and Britain didn't really want to fight. He was right about that all through the early months of the war. If France, the UK and USSR made clear that any shenanigans would result in a two or more front war, WWII would have been avoided. Hitler also thought that the USSR would collapse before winter 1941..

- WWI is the best example of all. No one thought that the war would last more than a few months, so it was a race to mobilise the quickly and attack your enemies. The Germans in particular thought they will quickly overrun France if they only went through neutral Belgium and Luxemburg..

This is why nuclear weapons are the best deterrent - even if you think you can win a nuclear war, the victory will not be sweet or easy.