tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post8721754639389968328..comments2024-03-22T11:34:45.165+01:00Comments on taw's blog: In search for Just Warstawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-88698120676686484982009-12-01T10:09:20.977+01:002009-12-01T10:09:20.977+01:00I'm confused. Are you saying that you don'...I'm confused. Are you saying that you don't believe that world conquest is an accurate representation of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Order_%28political_system%29" rel="nofollow">Hitler's long-term goals</a>, that Hitler's Germany wouldn't have had an atomic bomb by 1950 if it hadn't lost the war by then, that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amerika_Bomber" rel="nofollow">Amerika Bomber project</a> never existed, and/or that the U.S. could have endured an attack by nuclear ICBMs? As far as I know, everything I've said is the view of mainstream historians and is much less of a "fantasy" than anything you've said about peace with Hitler's Germany.Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-7064979076212064092009-12-01T03:55:24.118+01:002009-12-01T03:55:24.118+01:00Doug: Enjoy your fantasies, I doubt anything I cou...Doug: Enjoy your fantasies, I doubt anything I could say or any facts I can quote can chance your mind.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-6795284436061833772009-12-01T03:51:46.227+01:002009-12-01T03:51:46.227+01:00Hitler's Germany was developing both nuclear w...Hitler's Germany was developing both nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. By 1950, it could have been capable of compelling Britain's surrender without putting a single man on British soil, and would also have missiles capable of reaching the United States from Europe. The United States and Russia would both have no defense against German ICBMs and long-range bombers. He wouldn't have to actually invade in order to conquer the world.Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-10112203113634644642009-11-30T11:28:38.118+01:002009-11-30T11:28:38.118+01:00Doug: Basis of this nonsense being? Hitler was try...Doug: Basis of this nonsense being? Hitler was trying to get peace with British Empire all the time, and without having even enough Navy to invade England, it's a ridiculous idea that he could invade United States.<br /><br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_with_France_%28Second_Compi%C3%A8gne%29#Terms" rel="nofollow">Note how in 1940 after capitulation of France everybody was certain that peace was a matter of weeks</a>.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-81831046649138169722009-11-30T11:13:35.362+01:002009-11-30T11:13:35.362+01:00I take it that your analysis of World War II doesn...I take it that your analysis of World War II doesn't include a potential Nazi conquest of North America? AFACT, Hitler really wasn't going to settle for at anything less than world conquest.Doug S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-76599946439760784392009-10-14T16:40:32.944+02:002009-10-14T16:40:32.944+02:00Yes, everyone in Europe was so successful at defen...Yes, everyone in Europe was so successful at defending themselves that we had a millennium or so of constant warfare.<br /><br />A great example was ancient Greece - warfare was a constant situation, until Persians (unsuccessfully) and then Romans (successfully) tried to meddle and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Peace" rel="nofollow">enforce peace</a>.<br /><br />Because Greeks managed to defend themselves against Persians, a few more centuries of constant warfare followed.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-78828079526346762382009-10-14T16:21:24.861+02:002009-10-14T16:21:24.861+02:00I'll give you the overwhelming advantage one, ...I'll give you the overwhelming advantage one, where resistance probably isn't going to be very helpful. But what about say, hmm, the situation in Europe for many centuries, where many of the nations were fairly equivalent. Wouldn't in that situation the other situation become more prevalent? <br /><br />Though one should note that even the Roman time there were a few factions that were not overwhelmingly outclassed by the Romans, like for instance the Parthians, who handily defended themselves, or attacked. Being just as an aggressive faction as the Romans themselves really. Thus leading to the question, leaving those two jostling with each other led to centuries of useless warfare, no? Even after the West Romans fell, the Parthians and East Romans continued to compete till the end of the Parthan Empire. Basically what I'm saying is, would things actually turn out for the better thus if you did nothing? Or would they just find new ways to create ruin?Quickshotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-24590809459576158892009-10-11T22:01:47.785+02:002009-10-11T22:01:47.785+02:00Quickshot: That's the standard game theory ans...Quickshot: That's the standard game theory answer, but I see no empirical evidence for it. Wars, defensive or not, usually result in more wars and violence, and less democracy and freedom, almost never in the "aggressive leaders" being put out of power, and new era of peace shining.<br /><br />Also aggressions where two sides are more or less equal are extremely rare. Usually aggressor's power is completely overwhelming. They can sometimes be kicked out, but only by long, dirty, guerrilla fighting, costing hundreds of thousands of civilian lives, unless they lose political will to keep the occupation going. After such "victory" usually you get corrupt government dominated by military (like Taliban after they defeated Soviets in Afghanistan, or the Central European dictatorships after World War I, or most newly decolonized states in Africa).<br /><br />The alternative of just accepting the invasion and giving up usually costs little. Most aggressors just set up "more friendly" government, some unfair trade agreements especially on raw materials like oil, and maybe a few military bases, and that's about it.<br /><br />It sort of sucks, but it's nothing compared to what would happen in an actual war. And life before that was rarely any utopia, local elites most likely exploited most of the society in way that's not significantly different from the new elites.<br /><br />This is true with most aggressors from Romans to Mongols to Soviets, all of which were outright genocidal towards those that put serious effort to defend themselves.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-58983534753348288602009-10-11T12:38:08.542+02:002009-10-11T12:38:08.542+02:00Yeah, I realize that point of view. However..., I ...Yeah, I realize that point of view. However..., I think it only really works when you assume both attackers and defenders are entirely rational about the thing.<br /><br />What I mean with this is, is if you always surrender to attackers to reduce your losses, then all countries will be run by people who attack. From this you can easily derive that in practise we'd end up in a fairly anarchic situation where countries are constantly attacking one another for territory. And there these people are humans, it's rather doubtful you'd end up with one nation in the end, but that you'd end up with parties that refuse to surrender and just keep on spawning new wars. Considering each of them probably wants to take over the world.<br /><br />So on net, I place a few questions on if it is sane to leave the aggressively minded people in charge, wouldn't that ultimately lead to total disaster as they would no longer be constrained by defensive orientated countries?Quickshotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-16933884257441299692009-10-10T16:05:52.252+02:002009-10-10T16:05:52.252+02:00Quickshot: Who came out better out of World War 2 ...Quickshot: Who came out better out of World War 2 - people in countries that gave only token resistance like Denmark, or people in countries that seriously fought like Poland?<br /><br />Now if you have a serious chance of winning, and without suffering loses far greater than whatever would result from occupation, then the case for resistance can be argued, but extremely rarely it looks like that.<br /><br />There are also some game theoretic arguments for resistance even when you know you'll lose, but I was never particularly enthusiastic about them.tawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16972845140253292628noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27488238.post-31620429851358660552009-10-10T01:47:22.965+02:002009-10-10T01:47:22.965+02:00Hmmm, while you have a fair amount of points here....Hmmm, while you have a fair amount of points here. How should you consider the situation where a foreign agressor invades your country? Is it correct then to defend yourself, or should you always just let yourself be conquered?<br /><br />Though if you take the latter path, one should probably consider the issue of how it would probably make any real political progress impossible... atleast, that would seem the likely outcome. So taking that in to account, is defending yourself from invasion 'Just'?Quickshotnoreply@blogger.com