Author Topic: For armchair historians  (Read 177 times)

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
For armchair historians
« on: September 13, 2002, 10:43:49 AM »
Not to make any specific point on current events, just to expose stupidity and narrow-mindedness of people using historical examples as if they know what is supposed to happen exactly.

 If Hitler grab of Sudet area was foiled in Munich, WWII would not have happened. Sure. With no threat of war the allies would not have started arming themselves while Germany would have started doing it more vigorously. If WWII did still happen by some outside chance, it would have been even uglier.

 How about examples closer in essence to the current situation - terrorism, etc..

 When archduke of Austro-Hungarian empire was murdered by a serbian terrorist, they decided to hold Serbia (the same country that produced a terririst and even probably involved - too rational for our taste) responcible for it with unacceptable ultimatum and than declaration of war - with little substantiation and against opinion of the whole bunch of savages (russians) in the east that shared religion/blood with serbians. That while being culturally diverse with population not too eager to fight except each other.
 What happened to Austro-Hungarian empire as a result? Puff...

 When serbian terrostst killed the Hapsburg archduke and Austria desided to punish the hotbed of anti-austrian activity - Serbia, the Russian empire had to barge in and protect the scoundrels. At least they were of the same faith/race unlike us and Kuwait.
 Puff... No Russian empire. Hello 70 years of bolshevism and scores of millions dead.

 Er, Germany decided to honor the stupid alliance with corrupt Austrian monarchy that went overboard over one fat dead archduke, started the war and got into trouble with Russia for that. Actually the alliance included Italy which preferred to dishonor it immediately and join the (eventual) victors.
 So German Kaiser declared war to protect Austria from Russia. Puff... No German Kaiser, barely any Germany.

 Allies... Well, those just lost millions of people and got set up for the second world war and a century of world communism. You could call that getting off easy.

 So it looks like history presents as many examples of desastorous action as inaction.

 Of course the same idiots would tell me that there were fundamental conditions why WWI had to happen, colonies, etc. But they would not apply the same logic to WWII. Just slap Hitler in 38 and everything would have been great. Just topple Hussein in 1991 and Afghan-diracted and Germany and US-based saudi terrorists would not have hijacked the planes. Who but Iraq could have supplied them with box-cutters...

 Yea, right...

 miko

Offline Masherbrum

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 22408
For armchair historians
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2002, 10:46:17 AM »
That's all fine and dandy.  BUT, the objective of Desert Storm was to drive the Iraqi's out of Kuwait.  That's it.  

Karaya2
-=Most Wanted=-

FSO Squad 412th FNVG
http://worldfamousfridaynighters.com/
Co-Founder of DFC

Offline Sikboy

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6702
For armchair historians
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2002, 11:10:50 AM »
That is an interesting observation, and one I've heard made by smarter people than I.

Historic events should never be directly applied to current situations in my opinion. Instead, historical events should be used as precidents in forming models of international relations. This is very much a case when it comes to WWI vs. WWII.
 
People use WWI as a historic example of a situation that would best be explianed with the "Spiral model". According to this model, none of the participants were all that interested in losing millions of young men, but were compelled to do so out of fear and confusion. If that fear and confusion could be lessened, you could avoid war. Here's how it works: Side a begins a military buildup because it sees side B as a threat. Side be recipricates what it sees as overt agression by side A. Rinse, repeat until  at some point, someone gets shot, and then it's on (Bring it Ivan!) In this model, none of the states are truly agressive, instead they are all seeking security.

WWII on the other hand is a favorite of the Deterrence Model. This model suggests that because we can never truly know the intentions of those around us, we should make sure that they can not pose a threat. We do this by maitaining a strong military, and countering any of their moves with moves of our own. We make sure that at any time they will not have the means to defeat us militarily, and therefore they will not try.

Of course you you can see that following one model (deterrence) helped set up the first situation. And the other model (spiral) set up the second situation.

It is so increadibly difficult to know which way things will turn. You need to look at each situation seperately, and try to best understand the correct model to use.  Events are overdetermined. And adding to this are things like asymetrical threats and WMD. So you can see that those who use historic examples to justify or refute any current policy or action are usually (not always) just shooting from the hip. Unless of course they offer soemthing more to move their positions foreward.

-Sikboy
You: Blah Blah Blah
Me: Meh, whatever.

Offline midnight Target

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15114
For armchair historians
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2002, 11:15:47 AM »
As an armchair historian, I'm just glad Danny and Rafe were available to bomb those pesky Japanese.

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
For armchair historians
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2002, 11:44:44 AM »
i wish i had a nice armchair