davparlr
Senior Master Sergeant
Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century.
What exactly did WW2 in Europe Accomplish?
- Thread starter carbonlifeform
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I think it as actually pretty well said.
michaelmaltby
Colonel
Agreed, CrewChief.
Agreed, Parsifal, heading for "dangerous waters" .....
River and Condora ... you're both grinding axes.
"... Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century..." Well, we'll see how that plays out. Stabbing Dutch film makers to death in the streets of Holland and torching cars in the suburbs of Paris ... in Canada, having one law for Native Canadians and another for non-native ... how long are those peaceful societies going to stay peaceful?
Frankly, with all respect to Clausewitz, war is a component of the sometimes violent natural condition - much the way volcanoes and earthquakes are - self-regulating mechanisms. You don't celebrate these upheavals but recognize that they are expressions of forces larger than humanity.
In the past, empires like Rome and China have paid off their enemies or the people who threatened their secure reign ... it always bought a few years or a few ecades of stability but never prevented the inevitable. Today we see Little Kim in NorK trying the same routine ... the more he is appeased the more outrageous he becomes and the bigger the bribe. But nothing changes ... nations with power and influence fight to hang on to it, those without fight to achieve power and influence.
Wars will always need to be fought. Best be prepared and equipped because the worst mistake people can make is to believe that if they resist war strongly enough it won't happen ... it will.
Post WW2, both German and Japanese societies were consciously remade ... to an extreme. The Germans won't fight and the Japanese thought that war was a thing of the past -- until Little Kim started his testing missles.
The Romans had it right (overall). Pray for Peace but Prepare for War.
Nuff said.
MM
Agreed, Parsifal, heading for "dangerous waters" .....
River and Condora ... you're both grinding axes.
"... Fifty years of warless Europe? Sure beats the previous century..." Well, we'll see how that plays out. Stabbing Dutch film makers to death in the streets of Holland and torching cars in the suburbs of Paris ... in Canada, having one law for Native Canadians and another for non-native ... how long are those peaceful societies going to stay peaceful?
Frankly, with all respect to Clausewitz, war is a component of the sometimes violent natural condition - much the way volcanoes and earthquakes are - self-regulating mechanisms. You don't celebrate these upheavals but recognize that they are expressions of forces larger than humanity.
In the past, empires like Rome and China have paid off their enemies or the people who threatened their secure reign ... it always bought a few years or a few ecades of stability but never prevented the inevitable. Today we see Little Kim in NorK trying the same routine ... the more he is appeased the more outrageous he becomes and the bigger the bribe. But nothing changes ... nations with power and influence fight to hang on to it, those without fight to achieve power and influence.
Wars will always need to be fought. Best be prepared and equipped because the worst mistake people can make is to believe that if they resist war strongly enough it won't happen ... it will.
Post WW2, both German and Japanese societies were consciously remade ... to an extreme. The Germans won't fight and the Japanese thought that war was a thing of the past -- until Little Kim started his testing missles.
The Romans had it right (overall). Pray for Peace but Prepare for War.
Nuff said.
MM
Not really...
The Balkan region is still the powder keg of Europe. It will be a long time until there is stability and peace in that region.
Condora
Airman 1st Class
Well, it sure beats the previous, say... dozen of centuries?
I think FINALLY most of Europe more or less defined it's borders, and will rather cooperate than fight over some square meters of ground. As soon as France and Germany, Netherlands and Belgium, Portugal and Spain, etc. accepted nothing much would be gained by fighting, things got better.
It's a pity that the same does not happen in the Balkans, or Africa - mostly because european powers didn't respect the "tribal" borders, and created countries forcing coexistence of different people.
River and Condora ... you're both grinding axes.
No worries mate, just disagreeing. Besides, I favour the bastard sword...
I believe there's something about paying danegeld and then not getting rid of the dane.
Giving in is always dengerous
Last edited:
Well, it sure beats the previous, say... dozen of centuries?
Not so sure about that. The genocide there has claimed an estimated 136,000+ people (some estimates say as high as 200,000). That is pretty bad as well, especially considering it happened in the 1990s. It would have been much worse if NATO had not gone in and stopped it.
Actually, the 19th century was fairly quiet in Europe after 1815. The treaty of Vienna was arrainged by some pretty hard eyed people who weren't the least interested in freedom of the peoples. While France was a Republic, the rest of Europe wasn't. Hence the odd insurrections/revolutions throughout Europe during that century. About the only war fought in the 19th century, in Europe, that was of any note was the Franco Prussian War of 1870. The others tended to be pretty fast affairs of importance politically but not really militarily (Austro-Prussian War of 1866 comes to mind right away).
river
Airman
Hi,
I have no axe to grind. I'm just stating what I think.
I agree the Middle East has always been an area of instability, and I also concur with the economic Imperialism of the USA mentioned a few posts above.
I still don't think the Jews deserve their own state, or should of been given one. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I thought we went into Iraq because they "allegedly" had WMD? Not for reasons of terrorism (which is more the reason we went into Afghanistan).
But... if the concept that we have gone over to Iraq to fight terrorism in their own backyard is one that, if that's the case, is a war we have lost. Laws have been passed in USA, UK and Australia that erode peoples civil liberties and rights - all in the name of "keeping us safe" from terrorism. Furthermore, the war is bleeding money and resources, yet there is no end to terrorism. Our entire society has been changed - and not for the better - due to the supposed threat of terrorism. Back in the 50s and 60s we were frightened of the Commies, and now they've sort of gone we need a new bogeyman... the terrorist.
It would be a gravely naive person who thought for one second that the war in Iraq is going to remove the threat of terrorism. If anything it will harden their resolve and make them more cunning and more difficult to find and route out.
Funnily enough, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Who'd have thought!
river
I have no axe to grind. I'm just stating what I think.
I agree the Middle East has always been an area of instability, and I also concur with the economic Imperialism of the USA mentioned a few posts above.
I still don't think the Jews deserve their own state, or should of been given one. So we will have to agree to disagree on that one.
I thought we went into Iraq because they "allegedly" had WMD? Not for reasons of terrorism (which is more the reason we went into Afghanistan).
But... if the concept that we have gone over to Iraq to fight terrorism in their own backyard is one that, if that's the case, is a war we have lost. Laws have been passed in USA, UK and Australia that erode peoples civil liberties and rights - all in the name of "keeping us safe" from terrorism. Furthermore, the war is bleeding money and resources, yet there is no end to terrorism. Our entire society has been changed - and not for the better - due to the supposed threat of terrorism. Back in the 50s and 60s we were frightened of the Commies, and now they've sort of gone we need a new bogeyman... the terrorist.
It would be a gravely naive person who thought for one second that the war in Iraq is going to remove the threat of terrorism. If anything it will harden their resolve and make them more cunning and more difficult to find and route out.
Funnily enough, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Who'd have thought!
river
How do you know that no WMD's were found? You have a highly simplistic look upon the world that can only come from paying too much attention to the mainstream media. I think you would be shocked to find out that WMD's are easy to obtain and are everywhere. I think you would be surprised that even nuclear weapons can be bought on the blackmarket.
The Jews deserve Isreal, and the Palestinians don't.
The Jews deserve Isreal, and the Palestinians don't.
parsifal
Colonel
There were many unresolved issues that arose from the WWII. Any thinking person must draw that conclusion. But what it did do was to defeat the Nazis, and thereby preserve the western democratic condition.
If the war had not been fought and won, the world would ba a very different place to what it is now. Democracy would be dead, Europe would be united but under a totalitarian regime. Genocide would be an acceptable and legal solution to settlement issues. Warfare would be the accepted norm for resolving national disputes. There would be no rule of law and no procedural fairness tests applied to the legal system. Gays, Gypsies, jews, Slavs, coloureds the mentally ill, even diabetics and other congenital diseases would be treated by murder. Individual rights and freedoms would be totally subverted. The opinions of the state would be the only rules and opinions tolerated. It is likely thjat vast areas of the earth would be devatated by nuclear weapons and environmental disaster. The only art or literature permitted would be that which the state approved. Even your very thoughts would not be your own. There would be chronic shortages of consumer items as butter was converted to guns
And you people think the war (or winning the war) was not important. Thank god your opinions dont matter, thats all i can say
If the war had not been fought and won, the world would ba a very different place to what it is now. Democracy would be dead, Europe would be united but under a totalitarian regime. Genocide would be an acceptable and legal solution to settlement issues. Warfare would be the accepted norm for resolving national disputes. There would be no rule of law and no procedural fairness tests applied to the legal system. Gays, Gypsies, jews, Slavs, coloureds the mentally ill, even diabetics and other congenital diseases would be treated by murder. Individual rights and freedoms would be totally subverted. The opinions of the state would be the only rules and opinions tolerated. It is likely thjat vast areas of the earth would be devatated by nuclear weapons and environmental disaster. The only art or literature permitted would be that which the state approved. Even your very thoughts would not be your own. There would be chronic shortages of consumer items as butter was converted to guns
And you people think the war (or winning the war) was not important. Thank god your opinions dont matter, thats all i can say
river
Airman
Hi,
river
How do you know they were?
I was thinking the same about you.
No, I'm not surprised or shocked.
That's your opinion and I respect it, even though I disagree.
river
This again very much the other way around of what river says and also too much black-and-white. I believe they both deserve to co-exist next to eachother.
BTW, I think we should not let this thread become too political.
Last edited:
Clay_Allison
Staff Sergeant
- 1,154
- Dec 24, 2008
Jews started moving there in large numbers in the 1920s, they were the majority population of the area now known as Israel by the time the Country was created (it was nearly uninhabited at the turn of the century). If it had been done via plebiscite it would have gone the same way as the British edict.
The Isrealis have made the desert blossom. They have made a modern democratic society with good living standards in a area of poverty and indifference. The Palestinians have had numerous chances to coincide peacefully with the Jews but they haved proved literally to want to destroy Isreal more then they want to build a great society. The Isrealis have made many concessions to the Palestinians to no avail.
I will digress, we are getting well outside the acceptable boundries of this thread.
I will digress, we are getting well outside the acceptable boundries of this thread.
Funnily enough, no WMD have been found in Iraq. Who'd have thought!
I beg to differ. I was there though, so what do I know?
I completely agree, but it will never happen. At least not in my lifetime I think.
Last edited:
michaelmaltby
Colonel
"..There were many unresolved issues that arose from the WWII. (...) But what it did do was to defeat the Nazis, and thereby preserve the western democratic condition..."
Parsifal is right. The Great War 1914-18 left Europe and the Commonwealth countries exhausted and largely stripped of their Faith. It turned over Turkey and resulted in revolution in Russia (with close calls in Finland and Germany).
Consequently Europe was largely in denial about a follow-up war - with the exceptions of Germany and the USSR - both of whom had something to prove. Germany's appetite for war began with Versailles in 1918-19. And let's remember that the military co-operation that took place between Germany and Russia - and it was extensive, very extensive - ended with the coming to power of Hitler.
So - with the outset of WW2 - Mr. Churchill realized that much as he distrusted Stalin and loathed communism - he needed to make a deal with the Devil to preserve democracy. And he did. He gave Stalin great intelligence which Stalin ignored and he gave the Soviets as much aid as Britain could afford.
But inevitably deals with the Devil have a price and a home-to-roost-date. And these were the Iron Curtain and the Cold War - trapping millions in tyranny. And that state could not change without the process of time - the rotting and economic collapse from within - that President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher were able to assist in self-destruction.
If World War 2 teaches anything, it teaches that war and empire have very, very long lasting consequences. You can't fight, win and walk away, nor can you fight, lose and walk away. Nor can you hide in the sand.
It teaches that EVERY DAY people have to make MORAL DECISIONS. That the collective result of individual decisions is what makes or breaks a society. And that in the end - in democratic societies (at least) - people get the government they deserve.
So Carbon - I rank this thread as highly useful. I am not cynical about war but I am realistic. In times of war people do the most amazing, courageous, unselfish things - usually for their mates and neighbors. And as long as societies are prepared to remember and honor those deeds than war is a perpetual reminder of the very best as well as the worst very worst of human capability.
Amen
MM
Parsifal is right. The Great War 1914-18 left Europe and the Commonwealth countries exhausted and largely stripped of their Faith. It turned over Turkey and resulted in revolution in Russia (with close calls in Finland and Germany).
Consequently Europe was largely in denial about a follow-up war - with the exceptions of Germany and the USSR - both of whom had something to prove. Germany's appetite for war began with Versailles in 1918-19. And let's remember that the military co-operation that took place between Germany and Russia - and it was extensive, very extensive - ended with the coming to power of Hitler.
So - with the outset of WW2 - Mr. Churchill realized that much as he distrusted Stalin and loathed communism - he needed to make a deal with the Devil to preserve democracy. And he did. He gave Stalin great intelligence which Stalin ignored and he gave the Soviets as much aid as Britain could afford.
But inevitably deals with the Devil have a price and a home-to-roost-date. And these were the Iron Curtain and the Cold War - trapping millions in tyranny. And that state could not change without the process of time - the rotting and economic collapse from within - that President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher were able to assist in self-destruction.
If World War 2 teaches anything, it teaches that war and empire have very, very long lasting consequences. You can't fight, win and walk away, nor can you fight, lose and walk away. Nor can you hide in the sand.
It teaches that EVERY DAY people have to make MORAL DECISIONS. That the collective result of individual decisions is what makes or breaks a society. And that in the end - in democratic societies (at least) - people get the government they deserve.
So Carbon - I rank this thread as highly useful. I am not cynical about war but I am realistic. In times of war people do the most amazing, courageous, unselfish things - usually for their mates and neighbors. And as long as societies are prepared to remember and honor those deeds than war is a perpetual reminder of the very best as well as the worst very worst of human capability.
Amen
MM
Dark Matter
Banned
- 337
- Jun 23, 2009
Youi were in Iraq, Adler? 
Youi were in Iraq, Adler?
14 months (okay 2 months of that was in Kuwait though)...
Condora
Airman 1st Class
Well, *I* seem to be out of the axe-grinding controversy! 
I agree that Israelis and Palestinians SHOULD coexist peacefully... but I don't expect good sense coming from that side, as both sides have a lot of bad blood between them. If they managed to stop fighting for... say, 50 years, MAYBE they would solve everything. Fat chance!
About the 19th century, Europe didn't have so much fighting because after the Napoleonic wars, most countries were quite busy carving their empires elsewhere (Africa, Asia...). If they got involved in a war at home, they would risk loosing everything. But still there was a lot of tension, sometimes even between allies, like Britain and Portugal over Africa.
But it was likely that as soon as they would finish their "race for a colony", they would go back to settle old scores back home.
That Bismark managed to form Germany and get rid of Austria with a single war, is a credit to the man. Most of what he achieved, he did it through diplomacy. That avoided a sucession of wars over tiny german states.
As soon as that was settled, what was left was the expansion of the Russian Empire towards the Otoman Empire, and the French-Prussian dispute to see who was best.
Somehow, they managed to always foment resentment and discord to brew into the next century. And each XXth Century war increased the problem.
Going back on the original question, the Nazis HAD to be stopped.
What they were doing was terrible - I lack stronger uncensurable words -, and although a lot of what they did was not their invention, I would not like to be living under such a regime (and it had the added benefit of some others stopping doing exactly the same things).
Besides, I am not Neville Chamberlain, so I think that if Hitler had managed to control all of Europe, he would move on to Africa, America, Asia...
The only possible exception would be Palestina, as not even he would go there!
I agree that Israelis and Palestinians SHOULD coexist peacefully... but I don't expect good sense coming from that side, as both sides have a lot of bad blood between them. If they managed to stop fighting for... say, 50 years, MAYBE they would solve everything. Fat chance!
About the 19th century, Europe didn't have so much fighting because after the Napoleonic wars, most countries were quite busy carving their empires elsewhere (Africa, Asia...). If they got involved in a war at home, they would risk loosing everything. But still there was a lot of tension, sometimes even between allies, like Britain and Portugal over Africa.
But it was likely that as soon as they would finish their "race for a colony", they would go back to settle old scores back home.
That Bismark managed to form Germany and get rid of Austria with a single war, is a credit to the man. Most of what he achieved, he did it through diplomacy. That avoided a sucession of wars over tiny german states.
As soon as that was settled, what was left was the expansion of the Russian Empire towards the Otoman Empire, and the French-Prussian dispute to see who was best.
Somehow, they managed to always foment resentment and discord to brew into the next century. And each XXth Century war increased the problem.
Going back on the original question, the Nazis HAD to be stopped.
What they were doing was terrible - I lack stronger uncensurable words -, and although a lot of what they did was not their invention, I would not like to be living under such a regime (and it had the added benefit of some others stopping doing exactly the same things).
Besides, I am not Neville Chamberlain, so I think that if Hitler had managed to control all of Europe, he would move on to Africa, America, Asia...
The only possible exception would be Palestina, as not even he would go there!
Condora, while I agree it was true that most of Europe's energy was busy elsewhere in the colony chase (specifically Africa), it is not, to my mind, in and of itself a reason for wars not being fought on the continent. As the expansion west in the United States did not hinder the coming of the American Civil War (if anything, it hastened it), the colonial expansion in Africa had the potential to do that as well in Europe.
As for the Russians and the Turks, that brawl has been going on for centuries. Old fight, different names. Matter of fact, it is possible to look at WW2 through the lense of tribes or national groups (Huns, Slavs, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, ect) and do a fairly good job of accounting for all the players. In doing so, it would change the focus of the war from a political one to that of a long and ongoing war of territory between tribes that have existed for over 1000 years.
Tough thing about doing that is fitting the people of North and South America into the mix.
As for the Russians and the Turks, that brawl has been going on for centuries. Old fight, different names. Matter of fact, it is possible to look at WW2 through the lense of tribes or national groups (Huns, Slavs, Franks, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, ect) and do a fairly good job of accounting for all the players. In doing so, it would change the focus of the war from a political one to that of a long and ongoing war of territory between tribes that have existed for over 1000 years.
Tough thing about doing that is fitting the people of North and South America into the mix.
