this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
285 points (92.8% liked)
World News
267 readers
1111 users here now
Rules:
- Be a decent person
- No spam
- Add the byline, or write a line or two in the body about the article.
founded 1 month ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No, just making fun of you.
To constitute a joke, there must be a clear punchline. What he said, however, lacked coherence, and I sought clarification, which he ultimately failed to provide.
It's coherent to everyone else.
It is clear that ending World War II earlier would have saved millions of lives.
Doing something analogous to what you're saying should happen could have prolonged the Second World War by years. Doing the opposite of what you're suggesting but much sooner could have shortened the Second World War by years. Germany could only afford to get anything done because it was able to loot the countries it invaded during the appeasement era, and only able to manufacture military equipment at the scale necessary to invade France etc. because it was permitted to scale up manufacturing during the appeasement era. It's nearly universally accepted that the appeasement era cost far more lives than would have been lost had France and Britain intervened during the initial invasion of Czechoslovakia as it could have been enough to entirely prevent the later invasions of Poland and France.
There are two factors at play here. I am baffled when I hear that seeking peace by the Allies is considered a negative, while bombing Axis cities is viewed as a positive. If we are to discuss the specific circumstances required for peace, it is undoubtedly a far more complex conversation. During World War II, we were faced with the threat of the Aryan race attempting to dominate Europe and the Japanese Empire's sweeping control over vast portions of East Asia, including most of China's eastern coastal areas, Manchuria, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of Southeast Asia such as Vietnam, the Philippines, and many Pacific islands. Under those conditions, peaceful resolution was never a feasible option, particularly when considering the cost to their citizens. Peace may not have been achievable during that time, but in the present day, the lack of communication and de-escalation strategies from the current American administration has, in my view, contributed to the avoidance of peace rather than its pursuit.
What you don't seem to understand is Putin doesn't negotiate in good faith anyway, it has been proven over and over the Russian Government will lie, cheat, steal, whatever to get what they want. Appeasing dictators does not work and only strengthens them for their inevitable march on to attempt to gain more power/land/money.
The United States does not always negotiate in good faith either, and in this case, we are not holding the moral high ground. Dictatorships are ultimately the responsibility of the people within those nations to address and resolve, not external powers.
The current administration should have prioritized diplomatic efforts for peace rather than immediately resorting to military support escalating the conflict.
Man if only there was some example prior to the invasion of Ukraine where the west did nothing, and Russia then continued to escalate, something like Crimea?