Ukraine

[Trunkage]

Um, really? Because the idea that Germany felt aggrieved by the Treaty of Versailles was an idea I covered in modern history, but never did it state that Germany was justified, just that the resentment was what Hitler drew on, and there were even thoughts at the time that the terms were too harsh - contrast Wilson's 14 Points with Clemancu's hardline approach for instance.

If we apply that to Russia, for instance, one can understand a hypothetical Russian mindset of NATO "encroaching" upon them, without actually condoning its invasion.

Did your history teacher ever say that Hitler wasn't justified specifically about drawing upon that anger? Or was it just implied?

Anyway, I was also told differently. Not necessarily to invasion levels but definitely as justified in being angry. Of course, invasion never stated as bad. It just was. Just a point in time.... and then we wonder why Sean goes on like he does. Because history, at least what I got, never really discuss anger and it can lead to the justification of anything. Maybe not condoning invasion but never really condeming it either. Just an overall wiff of 'Hitler bad'. (And, as a personal hypothesis, I think its designed like that so we cant be criticized for invading.)

It's the number one reason I personally think the US has no understanding of what fascism is. Then they would have to look at their rabidness after 9/11 and starting asking real questions about what they are proposing. Or realise that their behaviour proved Bin Laden point (obs I include my country in that who were willing to kill so many over so little)

Sometimes historians can be way to clinical and not actually discuss impacts. Too worried about battles and dates and not worried about societal factors

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yeah, I was told that the Germans were justified in being angry, and Hitler used that. Mind you, I had some rubbish high school history teachers, one that declared to the class that because I have a Russian/Latvian last name, I would deny any faults or failings or the Russsians, and another that was still telling kids the Indian Mutiny was just about greased cartridges.

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, I was told that the Germans were justified in being angry, and Hitler used that. Mind you, I had some rubbish high school history teachers, one that declared to the class that because I have a Russian/Latvian last name, I would deny any faults or failings or the Russsians, and another that was still telling kids the Indian Mutiny was just about greased cartridges.

Jesus H Christ

 

[Hawki]

Did your history teacher ever say that Hitler wasn't justified specifically about drawing upon that anger? Or was it just implied?

I don't think they said anything. I mean, which is good, history teachers are meant to be impartial, but I don't recall the teacher saying anything. What I remember was the textbooks covering the Treaty of Versailles, and the assigned essay questions of (paraphrased):

-Was the treaty too harsh?

-Was it not harsh enough?

-If it had been harsher/less harsh, could WWII have been averted?

In case you're wondering, I don't recall how I answered. If you're asking me here, and now...I dunno. But I'd argue that the conditions for Nazi Germany came largely from the Great Depression. We have more contemporary examples of harsh economic conditions spurring hard left/right parties after all. In a way, I think the treaty is fairly academic, as no matter how lenient or harsh it was, there's still an avenue for Hitler to come to power. And if someone does make the "too harsh" argument, I'm reminded of how Austria-Hungary was subjected to even harsher penalties. In comparison, Germany got off fairly easily.

(I'd also argue that's kind of justified, since I think more blame should go to A-H for WWI than Germany itself, given that AH was the one that provided the ultimatum to Serbia, but that's another issue.)

Yeah, I was told that the Germans were justified in being angry, and Hitler used that. Mind you, I had some rubbish high school history teachers, one that declared to the class that because I have a Russian/Latvian last name, I would deny any faults or failings or the Russsians, and another that was still telling kids the Indian Mutiny was just about greased cartridges.

I remember the greased cartridges thing, but I don't think it was presented as "the" reason for the mutiny, but more the straw that broke the camel's back.

What I do recall is that in my Asian Studies unit, our teacher defended the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia, which was...eyebrow raising, to say the least.

 

[Gordon_4]

I don't think they said anything. I mean, which is good, history teachers are meant to be impartial, but I don't recall the teacher saying anything. What I remember was the textbooks covering the Treaty of Versailles, and the assigned essay questions of (paraphrased):

-Was the treaty too harsh?

-Was it not harsh enough?

-If it had been harsher/less harsh, could WWII have been averted?

In case you're wondering, I don't recall how I answered. If you're asking me here, and now...I dunno. But I'd argue that the conditions for Nazi Germany came largely from the Great Depression. We have more contemporary examples of harsh economic conditions spurring hard left/right parties after all. In a way, I think the treaty is fairly academic, as no matter how lenient or harsh it was, there's still an avenue for Hitler to come to power. And if someone does make the "too harsh" argument, I'm reminded of how Austria-Hungary was subjected to even harsher penalties. In comparison, Germany got off fairly easily.

(I'd also argue that's kind of justified, since I think more blame should go to A-H for WWI than Germany itself, given that AH was the one that provided the ultimatum to Serbia, but that's another issue.)



I remember the greased cartridges thing, but I don't think it was presented as "the" reason for the mutiny, but more the straw that broke the camel's back.

What I do recall is that in my Asian Studies unit, our teacher defended the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia, which was...eyebrow raising, to say the least.

I think regardless of the harshness - perceived or otherwise - of the treaty of Versailles, no one likes being the loser and even less for being punished for it. It would not have been hard for a remotely well spoken bullshit artist to turn that to their advantage with enough fiery, nationalist rhetoric. The Treaty is a convenient shorthand; an incorporeal Emmanuel for someone to hold up for the minute of hate.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In case you're wondering, I don't recall how I answered. If you're asking me here, and now...I dunno. But I'd argue that the conditions for Nazi Germany came largely from the Great Depression. We have more contemporary examples of harsh economic conditions spurring hard left/right parties after all. In a way, I think the treaty is fairly academic, as no matter how lenient or harsh it was, there's still an avenue for Hitler to come to power. And if someone does make the "too harsh" argument, I'm reminded of how Austria-Hungary was subjected to even harsher penalties. In comparison, Germany got off fairly easily.

(I'd also argue that's kind of justified, since I think more blame should go to A-H for WWI than Germany itself, given that AH was the one that provided the ultimatum to Serbia, but that's another issue.)

Yeah, IIRC, the Weimar Republic was getting things back together again in time to be kicked down again by the Depression. And Italy and Spain went fascist also.

While we are at it, Germany's military development had all sorts of restrictions placed on it which they could get around by buying out companies in other countries (say, Switzerland) and doing their R&D there. People let that go on, which came back to bite them.

What I do recall is that in my Asian Studies unit, our teacher defended the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia, which was...eyebrow raising, to say the least.

Huh.

 

[Hawki]

Huh.

Yep.

To be clear, I'm glad I took the course, especially when it came to Chinese and Vietnamese history, but for me, that was a "WTF?" moment. Even if we agree that European empire in Asia was bad, the idea that the Japanese were a liberating force? No. Just no. I don't doubt that many Japanese soldiers saw themselves as liberators, but consider what happened in China and Korea...yikes.

 

[Gordon_4]

Yep.

To be clear, I'm glad I took the course, especially when it came to Chinese and Vietnamese history, but for me, that was a "WTF?" moment. Even if we agree that European empire in Asia was bad, the idea that the Japanese were a liberating force? No. Just no. I don't doubt that many Japanese soldiers saw themselves as liberators, but consider what happened in China and Korea...yikes.

This is probably stupid but I can't help sometimes but wonder when I hear that opinion if these people think that had Imperial Japan (somehow) managed to sufficiently quell and conquer Korea and China (again, fucking how?) then the world would have been spared North Korea and China's takeover by the Communists.

 

[Hawki]

This is probably stupid but I can't help sometimes but wonder when I hear that opinion if these people think that had Imperial Japan (somehow) managed to sufficiently quell and conquer Korea and China (again, fucking how?) then the world would have been spared North Korea and China's takeover by the Communists.

Japan could easily hold Korea. They held it from the late 19th century, and China held it long before that as a tributary state. In a hypothetical world where WWII never occurred (at least in the Pacific), Japan could hold Korea for a long time. Don't know about China, but certainly part of it.

That said, if we're talking about being "spared" NK and China's takeovers...well, cold comfort is that as terrible as NK is, it's at least mainly been terrible to its own people and little else, and China's pretty much been the same for the most part. Even then, it's pretty cold moral calculus. It's kind of like saying "thank goodness the Nazis attacked the USSR, otherwise it would have been even stronger."

Then again, I've seen people say on Twitter that they would have joined the Nazis in WWII because if the Nazis have won, the US wouldn't have become a superpower. So applying that logic to Japan isn't something that surprises me.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Japan could easily hold Korea. They held it from the late 19th century, and China held it long before that as a tributary state. In a hypothetical world where WWII never occurred (at least in the Pacific), Japan could hold Korea for a long time. Don't know about China, but certainly part of it.

The communists had started getting power in China before the Japanese invaded, though, and given that they fought the invaders more than the government did, it helped their popularity.

Also, the Guomintang wouldn't have fled China and gone to Taiwan if they were still at war with the Japanese.

 

[Satinavian]

Ok, we all know about the millions of Ukrainian refugees, but it seems that more than 200 000 Russians have left Russia since the war started as well. Looks as if a lot of people are not really happy with the economic consequences and/or the increased crackdown on dissenters

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

The communists had started getting power in China before the Japanese invaded, though, and given that they fought the invaders more than the government did, it helped their popularity.

This is a myth, the Republic of China was the main Chinese forces fighting the Japanese in World War II, while there were communist Guerrillas fighting Japan, Mao main force saw an opportunity in the Invasion. I want to make one thing perfectly clear he did not work with the Japanese but he was willing to have the war play out to weaken the Republic of China, the only times he did fight the Japanese is when Stalin told him too. The war weakend the Republic of China so much it allowed Mao too gain power from a very unhappy populace.

 

[Agema]

I think regardless of the harshness - perceived or otherwise - of the treaty of Versailles, no one likes being the loser and even less for being punished for it. It would not have been hard for a remotely well spoken bullshit artist to turn that to their advantage with enough fiery, nationalist rhetoric. The Treaty is a convenient shorthand; an incorporeal Emmanuel for someone to hold up for the minute of hate.

The Treaty of Versailles is potentially overstated, maybe as a message of magnamity and amity more fitting to ideals of peace and reconciliation that were growing.

We could, for instance, argue that maybe the Allies should instead have smashed the collapsing Germany army all the way to Berlin, because then Germans couldn't have spread the myth that their army wasn't beaten, it was politically betrayed. Or that Germany was in fact stabilising in the mid-late 20s, until the Great Depression, with the Versailles repayments already drastically watered down / suspended.

The communists had started getting power in China before the Japanese invaded, though, and given that they fought the invaders more than the government did, it helped their popularity.

So the CCP claims, irrespective of the evidence either way.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Huh, ok, I was led to believe that the Japanese had claimed to be fighting the communists more than the government, but it seems I was mistaken.

 

[Hawki]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/australia-must-ready-solomon-islands-invasion-to-stop-china-security-deal/news-story/d53d32a38e000a45a736df4fc7f8f38f

Fuck me, Russia's giving us ideas.

 

[Gordon_4]

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/australia-must-ready-solomon-islands-invasion-to-stop-china-security-deal/news-story/d53d32a38e000a45a736df4fc7f8f38f

Fuck me, Russia's giving us ideas.

Now here is indeed an ethical dilemma.

 

[Lykosia]

It's becoming more and more clear that Russia lost this war, like I wrote here almost exactly a month ago. It looked like that from the beginning. They can't win without full mobilization and that would be too risky for Putin.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's becoming more and more clear that Russia lost this war, like I wrote here almost exactly a month ago. It looked like that from the beginning. They can't win without full mobilization and that would be too risky for Putin.

Well, depends what the actual goals were, a military victory might not have been a requirement. But yeah, hard to see how this could be a win.

 

[Generals]

It's becoming more and more clear that Russia lost this war, like I wrote here almost exactly a month ago. It looked like that from the beginning. They can't win without full mobilization and that would be too risky for Putin.

Well... It was not that easy to predict. Putin expected Ukraine to fall Afghanistan style, with little to no resistance and a lot more support from Russian speaking Ukrainians.
But yeah, it seems the war is lost for Russia and with how badly it is going I don't see Ukraine giving more than Neutrality and maybe, just maybe, Crimea. Which is much less than Putin had wanted but sufficient to somewhat save face in Russia.

 

[Agema]

Fuck me, Russia's giving us ideas.

The treaty is, however, extraordinarily alarming for Australia and a clear statement of intent of China's ambitions in power projection. Some snippets:

Spoiler

China may, on request, “send police, police, military personnel and other law enforcement and armed forces to Solomon Islands” in circumstances ranging from maintaining social order to unspecified “other tasks agreed upon by the Parties”.

"relevant forces of China can be used to protect the safety of Chinese personnel and major projects in Solomon Islands."

And that "without the written consent of the other party, neither party shall disclose the cooperation information to a third party." The parties here are the Chinese and Solomon Islands government: the Solomon Islands government cannot even inform its own people of what it lets China do.

Thus this isn't just a naval base, it's potentially a far wider military presence. Not only that, but it creates a perfect circumstance for China to turn the Solomons into a puppet state, needing just one corrupt president willing to sign away his country's sovereignty. That said, I think it's a "first draft": something that will be heavily watered down if passed at all. Threatening to invade the Solomons is however as dumb as it gets: there's no chance of a happy ending from that.