Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Online
112 guest(s) and 0 member(s)
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
VideoGamesSuck.com :: View topic - History and Europe
I recently watched a long series of documentaries about the history of Europe in the 20th century.
I wondered if it had not been Europe but the US that had been completely devastated twice in half a century at the cost of millions and millions of lives, would the US still have been so eager to invade Iraq, defend the regime in South Vietnam or to go to any war in the first place? Maybe then it would have been the European countries taking the aggressive stance in such situations (like they had done during many centuries prior to WWII)?
Current policies are determined to a great extent by experience and the US has never experienced such incredibly devastating wars as WWI an WWII on their own soil.
Last edited by berzerker on Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:35 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:27 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Interesting point.
the two world wars were immense in scale. The Europeans learned a lot from that.
In the US, Vietnam really did make the public sick of war, and it took all the way until Panama for them to accept another war. It's so sad that the elite called this "Vietnam Syndrome", as if it's bad for the entire population to want peace.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 1:45 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
The scale of the casualties in WWI is beyond belief.
It is difficult to declare the Battle of the Somme a victory for either side. The British and French captured little more than five miles (8 km) at the deepest point of penetration—well short of their original objectives. The British themselves had gained approximately only two miles and lost about 420,000 soldiers in the process, meaning that a centimetre cost about two men.
I read somewhere that this single battle (which took 5 months or so) cost more lives (of all countries involved, so not just the British) then all wars in the 19th century combined, which was most certainly no peaceful century (Napoleon conquests etc). I could not find the link again however.
Mind you, these were all soldiers. There were hardly any civilian casualties in WWI (most unlike WWII).
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:09 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Ya the Somme was a gruesome battle. But WWII was worst. Barbarossa was the largest land battle ever, consisting of 20 million people. Stalingrad was one of the bloodiest campaigns of all of WWII
And the Soviets alone lost more people in WWII then all the casualties in WWI.
WWI was strange in that the slaughter was so senseless.
But the worst atrocity ever was committed by America: Fat man and little boy cost the lives of 200,000+ people INSTANTLY! and the bombing of Dresden (by the allies) was reprehensible, pows boiled to death underneath the city. In fact, no one in America even knew about that until the 60's. Something like 100,000+ people died there.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:16 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Yeah, there are so much more civilians than soldiers, so the numbers can rise quickly if you start slaughtering civilians too. Since then we have treaties against that, but now we have countries like Israel (and the US) who consider themselves not bound by treaties, there you go. Maybe they might get wiser after WWIII or IV or so.
Last edited by berzerker on Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:37 pm, edited 1 time in total
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:30 pm
captnPugwash_halabalobale
Banned
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 670
Location: AfghanWarriorsClub (AWC)
berzerker wrote:
Maybe they might get wiser after WWIII or IV or so.
on the bright side consoles wont exist!
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:40 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
It truly is a joke how America ignores international law whenever it wants.
Take Raegan's response when the ICC charged America with the war crime of agression. He just said America has a right to defend its borders.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 2:49 pm
captnPugwash_halabalobale
Banned
Joined: Apr 26, 2007
Posts: 670
Location: AfghanWarriorsClub (AWC)
i donot find it surprising. from time immemorial humans have always behaved this way. the most powerful will always get their way. it is hardwired in the human psyche. you break that, then you break the bonds nature has over you. untill then the same shit will repeat. rome, uk , us, next some other country....
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:10 pm
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
i donot find it surprising. from time immemorial humans have always...
That's actually the name of this revisionist book by Joan Peters which tries to assert that there were no Palestinians before the state of Israel.
It's true though, people in a position of power always usurp that power, all the while claiming to act in the good of the people. This was that whole "altruism" thing Andrew Ryan was talking.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:20 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
puk wrote:
It truly is a joke how America ignores international law whenever it wants.
Take Raegan's response when the ICC charged America with the war crime of agression. He just said America has a right to defend its borders.
You can whatever you want when you are on top of the world so suck it! The UN has almost no power without the backing of the US
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:23 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
[quote="puk"]
captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
It's true though, people in a position of power always usurp that power, all the while claiming to act in the good of the people. This was that whole "altruism" thing Andrew Ryan was talking.
That is why people look so highly at George Washington in that he could have basically declared himself king and everyone would be for it. However, he willing gave up his presidency after two terms
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:31 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Suislide wrote:
The UN has almost no power without the backing of the US
Who was talking about the UN here? BTW it is obvious that the UN has no power because it is designed not to have any power.
Only in the US somehow the UN is considered an enemy apparently.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:07 pm
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
Another thing: AFAIK in WWII no means of chemical warfare were used, although this was used extensively in WWI and all parties had large stocks or the most lethal chemicals. IIRC only the Japanese have used them, but only against Asians, not against the US or the British armies. Apparently the fear of chemical reprisals was too strong, even in desperate situations, and even for the most unscrupulous leaders (like Hitler and Stalin).
Basically this is the same as the mutual assured destruction of the cold war; neither the US nor the sovjets used atomic bombs in fear of nuclear reprisals. Maybe this translates to the current situation in the middle east, and the only way to avoid future wars in the middle east would be to let Iran have nuclear arms, after which Sunni muslim countries would need to get nuclear arms too, so basically all major players would be able to wipe out each other completely.
But this would be really tricky: even more idiots with nukes in the world.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 10:40 pm
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
berzerker wrote:
Another thing: AFAIK in WWII no means of chemical warfare were used, although this was used extensively in WWI and all parties had large stocks or the most lethal chemicals. IIRC only the Japanese have used them, but only against Asians, not against the US or the British armies. Apparently the fear of chemical reprisals was too strong, even in desperate situations, and even for the most unscrupulous leaders (like Hitler and Stalin).
Basically this is the same as the mutual assured destruction of the cold war; neither the US nor the sovjets used atomic bombs in fear of nuclear reprisals. Maybe this translates to the current situation in the middle east, and the only way to avoid future wars in the middle east would be to let Iran have nuclear arms, after which Sunni muslim countries would need to get nuclear arms too, so basically all major players would be able to wipe out each other completely.
But this would be really tricky: even more idiots with nukes in the world.
Yeah MAD worked with two countries who didn't want to destroy themselves. However, some of these people are willing to kill themselves to destroy other's and all it takes is one of these people to get in a position of power. Look at the current leader of Iran...he is a nutcase
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:25 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
berzerker wrote:
Suislide wrote:
The UN has almost no power without the backing of the US
Who was talking about the UN here? BTW it is obvious that the UN has no power because it is designed not to have any power.
Only in the US somehow the UN is considered an enemy apparently.
I brought up the topic of the UN, and he is right b/c the US is essentially strangling the UN with it's vetos (the Soviets were in the lead until the mid 60's when the US lost control of the european countries and resorted to vetos). In fact the US owes a shitload of money to the UN as well and refuses to pay. Also, the US frequently boycotts UN meetings, which, in the words of chomsky, essentially means erasing that meeting from history.
I disagree that the UN was created to have no power. In principle it should work since its laws are designed to have precedence over national and regional laws.
The US always thinks of the UN as an enemy, after all, they elected John Bolton to the position of permanent UN ambasador
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:26 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
captnPugwash_halabalobale wrote:
i donot find it surprising. from time immemorial humans have always behaved this way. the most powerful will always get their way. it is hardwired in the human psyche. you break that, then you break the bonds nature has over you. untill then the same shit will repeat. rome, uk , us, next some other country....
You may be right.
The problem is of course that the possible scale of devastation has continued to grow due to technical advances. In WWI we had unprecedented massive artillery shellings, machine guns being able to wipe out waves of enemies at once, chemical warfare and the first use of airplanes and tanks.
In WWII we had large scale use of tanks and airplanes, and the first use of long range missiles and nukes.
Now we have huge amounts of long range missiles and nukes, so WWIII is going to be an unprecedented slaughter, unless humanity evolves too rather than only its technical knowledge. It would seem silly even for the currently most powerful countries to go against treaties that seek to prevent predictable WWIII scenarios. Indeed the US had signed such treaties during the cold war, but after that they seemed to have lost it.
Most countries realize that it is not in anyone's interest to have nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Many countries (Japan, Germany, but also Sweden or South Korea for that matter) could have nukes tomorrow, but choose not too. These seem to be much wiser than France / UK / US / Russia / Israel / India / Pakistan / China.
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:29 am
puk
A Winner is me!
Joined: Jun 23, 2008
Posts: 2140
Location: Southampton, UK
Suislide wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Another thing: AFAIK in WWII no means of chemical warfare were used....
Yeah MAD worked with two countries who didn't want to destroy themselves...
Just barely, as you are no doubt aware, the Cuban Missile crisis almost lead to nuclear apocolypse. The only reason it didn't happen is b/c the 2nd in command refused to agree with the captain and fire the soviet nukes.
The US intelligence agencies put the likelihood of a nuclear strike on American soil in the next 20 years close to 50% That's insane! And pakistan is so destabilized that I literally can't sleep at night. It's a terrorist hot bed, and it has nukes. Also, if you read In Search of Enemies, it talks about how the US actually lost a nuke once!!!! It fell out of a plane and into a swamp, and when they couldn't find it, just deemed the lake a radiation hazard.
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:45 am
berzerker
A Winner is me!
Joined: Nov 01, 2006
Posts: 2350
puk wrote:
And pakistan is so destabilized that I literally can't sleep at night. It's a terrorist hot bed, and it has nukes.
Yeah, the more countries have WMD the bigger the chance that they will fall into the wrong hands. Pakistan is a huge risk, much more so than Iran currently IMHO.
OTOH, any technically advanced country could get an idiot dictator as leader in no time and anything could happen then. Just imagine that the rise of China fuels the old hostility between China and Japan and Japan would rebuild a weapon industry and get military rule who decides it needs to have WMD because China has them too and China has superior numbers anyway?
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:09 am
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
puk wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Suislide wrote:
The UN has almost no power without the backing of the US
Who was talking about the UN here? BTW it is obvious that the UN has no power because it is designed not to have any power.
Only in the US somehow the UN is considered an enemy apparently.
I brought up the topic of the UN, and he is right b/c the US is essentially strangling the UN with it's vetos (the Soviets were in the lead until the mid 60's when the US lost control of the european countries and resorted to vetos). In fact the US owes a shitload of money to the UN as well and refuses to pay. Also, the US frequently boycotts UN meetings, which, in the words of chomsky, essentially means erasing that meeting from history.
I disagree that the UN was created to have no power. In principle it should work since its laws are designed to have precedence over national and regional laws.
The US always thinks of the UN as an enemy, after all, they elected John Bolton to the position of permanent UN ambasador
We don't like the UN because we are their only force behind them to accomplish anything and it irritates us that they can't do anything without us
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 2:11 am
Suislide
VGS Admin
Joined: Aug 14, 2003
Posts: 509
puk wrote:
Suislide wrote:
berzerker wrote:
Another thing: AFAIK in WWII no means of chemical warfare were used....
Yeah MAD worked with two countries who didn't want to destroy themselves...
Just barely, as you are no doubt aware, the Cuban Missile crisis almost lead to nuclear apocolypse. The only reason it didn't happen is b/c the 2nd in command refused to agree with the captain and fire the soviet nukes.
The US intelligence agencies put the likelihood of a nuclear strike on American soil in the next 20 years close to 50% That's insane! And pakistan is so destabilized that I literally can't sleep at night. It's a terrorist hot bed, and it has nukes. Also, if you read In Search of Enemies, it talks about how the US actually lost a nuke once!!!! It fell out of a plane and into a swamp, and when they couldn't find it, just deemed the lake a radiation hazard.
Where do you live that you can't sleep at night? You are over-worrying yourself. Anyways, losing one nuke is a much better track record than Russia who lost quite a few. Couple of the ones they lost were 10KT suitcase sized nukes. Hopefully that will help you sleep
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 5Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Next
