- Joined
- May 8, 2017
- Messages
- 2,578
- Reaction score
- 697
- Location
- New York City area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.
WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.
Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.
Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.
WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.
Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.
Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.
Let me summarize:
Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:
North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.
In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?
A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”
The "relitigation" should not have happened. WW II was much better handled at the end. Not perfect by any means but better.Anyone who thinks the conditions placed on Germany after WW1 were the results of the Allies being 'nice' needs to rethink their position. They directly contributed to WW1 being relitigated as WW2.
The Arabs started that war. The Israelis invited them to sue for peace after the war. Khartoum and the "three no's" were the answer.50 years after the 1967 War and Israel victory, Israel is still annexing disputed territory. This goes far beyond your "might/victory makes right" justification.
It was a non-binding GA, not UNSC resolution. Why are the colleges not rife with BDS against Russia?As UN Resolution 68/262 (27 March 2014) stated regarding the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, nations cannot unilaterally/forceably annex territory that does not legally belong to them.
This doctrine has been the bedrock of international relations/diplomacy since the end of WWII and was the impetus of the international coalition to prevent Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991.
It was a non-binding GA, not UNSC resolution.
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.
WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.
Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.
Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.
WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.
Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.
Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.
Let me summarize:
Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:
North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.
In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.
Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?
A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”
50 years after the 1967 War and Israel victory, Israel is still annexing disputed territory. This goes far beyond your "might/victory makes right" justification.
As UN Resolution 68/262 (27 March 2014) stated regarding the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, nations cannot unilaterally/forceably annex territory that does not legally belong to them.
This doctrine has been the bedrock of international relations/diplomacy since the end of WWII and was the impetus of the international coalition to prevent Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991.
I think you need to take Vietnam off that list. That country is unified, self-governed, and doing nicely.
Not only that, the North Vietnamese didn't invade the south. It was a Civil War after kicking out the French colonialists.
What's the use for the U.N. anyway? Debating clubs don't need the overhead.It was a non-binding GA, not UNSC resolution. Why are the colleges not rife with BDS against Russia?
Only because Russia vetoed the similar UNSC Resolution.
How very selective of you to omit.....
I suppose it is selective of me since I've lived in mainland Ukraine and Crimea.
If true, you should know better. And you should also remember, Ukrainians welcomed and joined with the Nazis when they arrived.
Some did yes, 70 years ago. At the time, it seemed like a better choice. Stalin had already starved to death ~7-10 million Ukrainians during the Holodomor (32 and 33).
What they didn't know then of course, is that Hitler planned to enslave and starve the inferior Slavic peoples after he was done killing all the Jews.
In the Ukraine elections of 2014, the far-right parties (Svoboda/Pravy Sektor) failed to meet the 5% vote threshold. There are no far-right wingnuts in the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) nor in the administration of Petro Poroshenko.
By the way, the Nazi Party in the US is alive and well and now aligns with skinheads and white supremacists.
I don't believe you really have any knowledge of the Nazis.
Wikipedia - American Nazi PartyAmerican Nazi Party
Leader: George Lincoln Rockwell (1959–67)
Matt Koehl: (1967–2014)
Rocky Suhayda: (2014–present)
Founder: George Lincoln Rockwell
Founded: 1959; 59 years ago (as World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists)
Ideology: Neo-Nazism
Neo-fascism
White nationalism
Antisemitism
Political position: Far-right
International affiliation: World Union of National Socialists
Party Flag
And I don't believe you have any working knowledge of Ukraine beyond Kiselyev's Vesti Nedeli programmy na kanale-1
Educate yourself a bit...
Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Professor Timothy Snyder
Basic Books | 2012 | 560 pp
Not only that, the North Vietnamese didn't invade the south. It was a Civil War after kicking out the French colonialists.
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.
If true, you should know better. And you should also remember, Ukrainians welcomed and joined with the Nazis when they arrived.
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.
Lots of South Vietnamese didn't like it either. That's who the Viet Cong were.
You really believe the communist propaganda?
Which propaganda? Are you saying the VC came from the north? They just parachuted into the villages and were hidden and protected because, um because propaganda?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?