- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politicalmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
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”:
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.
Germany invades Poland on 01.09.1939
France and UK declare war on Germany in response on 03.09.1939
Soviet Union invades Poland on 17.09.1939 as was planned between Hitler and Stalin.As you noted China and Japan were already at war.
This means that within two and a half weeks of the “conventional” date all major global powers except for the United States were at war.
The conventional date is the most reasonable date to signify the start of a global war.
But there were also 8 months of “phony war” after that date, where Britain and France had declared on Germany, but weren’t actually shooting (much) yet.
all major global powers except for the United States were at war
Yes, but they were effectively separate wars. The UK and France were not concerned with what Japan was doing (yet…that would come later, and admittedly for separate reasons than America’s even later involvement), and Japan was not concerned about Poland or France.
Point 3 is the worst one by far, since both France and the UK had colonial holdings in very different parts of the world.
The only worse method is the Dutch system of “WW2 started when we got invaded”, which means it started on May 10th 1940.
Two other options would be:
A. End of the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact (any war with Russia is technically transcontinental)
B. British sinking of the Vichy fleet (happened in a lot of places right?)
Or paradigm adjustments to the two you suggested:
A. France/Britain declaring war in response to German invasion of Poland (committing their global empires to the conflict) B. Japanese campaign in Malaysia and Indonesia adding that theatre to Japan's war and putting them at war with.... Ummm other empires.... I think British and dutch?
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.
At best, their nuclear program has been setback a few years - at worst, only a few months.
Akshully, at worst, they have working nukes already.
Fuu-
insert terminator nuclear explosion gif
I acknowledge that nationalism (and the accompanying phenomenon of mass conscription) have changed the nature of warfare, but I don’t think that that is as much a deciding factor in these circumstances as you apparently do. The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated. (And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)
However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of as the start of a war rather than as an alternative to war. Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender. Unlike the USA in World War II, Iran has no plausible means to win the war if the USA has the will to follow through.
In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.
The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated.
That’s just the problem - the nature of nationalism makes that abstract, realist negotiation extremely difficult. Extremely powerful countries can sometimes get away with it by the apathy of their citizens to far-off conflicts, but direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments - whether the national government wills it or no. Iran is no democracy, but it is still built on the compliance of its citizenry - if the opinions of the citizenry are not “We should lay down and take it” - an opinion rarely expressed even by highly outmatched peoples - then the Iranian government has no choice but to respond. Even if an overthrow of the government directly is not possible, internal politiking would spell doom for the careers of those who failed to take action, and propel ambitious politicians to the forefront.
You don’t need a democracy to have politiking.
(And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)
“Intimidation” is a funny way to describe wiping out two major military-industrial centers after four years of brutal warfare stripping Japan of all holdings east of the home islands and the surrender of all its allies.
However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of the start of a war as opposed to a potential alternative to war.
In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.
Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender.
-
Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.
-
Again, using this to start another war in the Sandbox is just a different - and worse - flavor of foolishness than thinking “NOW is the time for PEACE”.
In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don’t keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we’ve decided to start. If we do, they can’t build a bomb.
… what level of bombing do you think would be necessary to maintain Iran’s inability to construct a nuclear weapon anywhere inside of Iran?
What level of military involvement do you think would be necessary for such an undertaking?
direct threats to a polity rally citizenry around even repulsive national governments
This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage. If it doesn’t, it can claim that the damage wasn’t severe (as it has been doing) and then later obscure the impact of whatever restrictions it agrees to abide by. The average Iranian isn’t going to know the difference between an agreement that leaves Iran on the brink of building a bomb and an agreement that leaves it with purely symbolic enrichment capability nowhere near what building a bomb would require.
The more visible Israeli attacks may be less easy to downplay, but even there the government can ameliorate public opinion by exaggerate the scope of the damage to Israel that has already been done.
wiping out two major military-industrial centers
By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability left. Its only remaining strategy was guerilla warfare in order to make conquest of the home islands cost more than what the USA was willing to pay, and in this context the atomic bombs were an act of intimidation.
In which case the barking about peace from Trump is nonsense.
Since I do think that the Iranian government still has the option to back down, I disagree with you here. I suppose we’ll see which one of us is right over the course of the coming weeks.
Trump is foolish enough that anything is possible.
I agree, and that makes me very worried even though I think that the attack on Iran is not inherently a mistake.
This is true but I suspect that attacks on remote, secret uranium enrichment facilities will not lead to particularly strong public outrage unless the Iranian government wants to stir up that outrage.
Imagine if Iran bombed remote, secret military bases on US soil and then bragged about it.
Do you think that there wouldn’t be public outrage, even if the US government tried to cover it up?
It isn’t about the nature of the target. It’s being targeted that raises hackles.
By that point in the war, Japan effectively had no military-industrial capability.
That’s not even close to true. Being horrifically outmatched is not the same as having no capacity.
-
Iran has no plausible means to win the war if the USA has the will to follow through.
Just like Afghanistan? That worked out so well, right? Right?
The objectives are different. If the USA set out to try nation-building then I would be opposed for exactly the reasons you have in mind, but I don’t think that the USA has any intention of occupying Iran in any circumstances.
Well Trump has already “truthed” some nonsense about Regime Change and “Making Iran Great Again! MIGA”
