1mo ago

Glad I don't live in 1941

Political Memes @lemmy.world

ByteOnBikes @discuss.online

1mo ago

22 comments

What Trump did is even worse. There was a World War going on in 1941. Trump's trying to initiate one.
- This post made me wonder about when WWII became an actual "World War", which turned out to be a rather interesting topic:
  This is an article about when the US started calling the conflicts it was fighting in "World War II":
  https://text-message.blogs.archives.gov/2014/09/22/how-and-when-did-world-war-ii-officially-become-world-war-ii/
  I only found that info of the topic after 2 min on Duckduckgo on my phone, still quite interesting.
  
  Way back in my high school history class, we had a discussion about the start of WWII, and 3 dates were of particular note.
  The conventional date, when Germany incades Poland.
  The much earlier date when Japan's invasion of Manchuria turns into an all-out war, starting the Second Sino-Japanese War. This is, after all, the start of something declared a "war"which would eventually form part of WWII.
  Pearl Harbour. This marks the beginning of the US's direct involvement in the war, turning it from two separate localised wars into one global war.
  Personally, I always found the conventional date the least convincing of the three. The arguments for the other two both make a lot more sense to me.
  
  That is interesting!
  I wonder if future historians will join this series of disconnected (so far) conflicts under one umbrella of "World War 3" starting on 24.02.2022. Shit gets more and more global every day.
  
  Definitely interesting. Thanks for the link!
At least Iran isn't a world-class power, I guess, but it's not really any less stupid.
- How so? Attacking a stronger enemy is generally foolish, but attacking a weaker enemy in the same manner can be an effective way of getting what you want. Even if it does turn out to be foolish, it won't be foolish for the same reasons.
  
  The idea that using direct force as a means of intimidation hasn't been viable since the rise of nationalism in the 19th century. Attacks like this are only useful insofar as they can cripple an enemy - in the case of both Japan-US in WW2 and US-Iran now, such is not the case.
  At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months. And in both cases, the perception that it is necessary will have been strengthened considerably.
  This is only a non-foolish move if, in context, either a war is going to start very soon or Iran's government is about to be overthrown. The latter I wouldn't count on; the former is just a different form of foolishness - and a worse one at that.
  tl;dr; sucker-punching someone in the face is not how you make them eager for peace. It's how you make them realize that all you understand is war, which is a bit antithetical to negotiating a lasting peace.

22 comments