Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: brian brian

A great perspective Peter, thanks. It helped me realize something not mentioned in that book "The End" at all, but the movie was leading me to thinking - there is a lot of hubris in that question "Why did they keep fighting?" And that is because the Americans in particular, when asking this question, can't understand the other side. The Americans were in the war for noble purposes - how could anyone oppose that? Couldn't the Germans see what was the right thing to do? The USA is always doing the right thing, right? Why don't they just quit fighting and sign up with Uncle Sam? Such hubris can be found in many other historical questions of the 20th century.

I wouldn't say that this did only happen in the 20th century. It is something of all ages. Look at the Crusades, the 100 year war or the 80 year war or at the Islamic State. All sides fight for what they think are "noble" causes...

I've concluded you can't fight a war for a noble cause. A war is always for the bounty you can get. Napoleon once stated: "You don't always get good soldiers for your gold, but good soldiers can always get you more gold". The Germans called it "Lebensraum" and the developed nations now call it our "interests"...

And there is something else to consider too... Ever thought of how history is put down in writing? Isn't the victor always the good guy on the long term? I've made a small study of the Neurenberg processes and at one time there was a German lawyer who stated some pretty nasty war crimes done by the allied forces of the three major participants (US, British and especially the Soviets) on his defense of his client. The court put him down at once, but his client was charged for being responsible for the exact same thing those Allied forces did. Those commanders were never tried, the German commander was send to prison for this. Strange behaviour, don't you think?

Usually when the generations involved in a war are extinct, time is ripe for a scientifically sound study of events. So we are not quite there yet..

@Centuur: Are you saying life should be fair, but isn't?

That's about it. Life isn't fair, never has been, so don't pretend that it is...

ORIGINAL: Centuur

That's about it. Life isn't fair, never has been, so don't pretend that it is...

I will pretend if I want to centuur and you cant stop me so there,[:-] you know whats not fair in life it is when the person who owns the football, and we wont let him play in the game he ends up taking his ball home, now that's unfair [:D]

Bo

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Centuur

That's about it. Life isn't fair, never has been, so don't pretend that it is...

I will pretend if I want to centuur and you cant stop me so there,[:-] you know whats not fair in life it is when the person who owns the football, and we wont let him play in the game he ends up taking his ball home, now that's unfair [:D]

Bo

warspite1

No that is not unfair - you want to know what is really unfair?

I am not humungously rich, with film star looks and with the sexual appetite of a strutting rhino. Now that's a constant source of irritation....[:(]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Centuur

That's about it. Life isn't fair, never has been, so don't pretend that it is...

I will pretend if I want to centuur and you cant stop me so there,[:-] you know whats not fair in life it is when the person who owns the football, and we wont let him play in the game he ends up taking his ball home, now that's unfair [:D]

Bo

warspite1

No that is not unfair - you want to know what is really unfair?

I am not humungously rich, with film star looks and with the sexual appetite of a strutting rhino. Now that's a constant source of irritation....[:(]

+1. Now why didn't I win the lottery this month... [&:] That's unfair too... [;)]

Lotteries are literally unfair! Otoh you had fair chance not to do it
Unlike buying MWiF (when I did) you are well informed about what you spend your money on, when buying a lottery ticket.

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Unlike buying MWiF (when I did) you are well informed about what you spend your money on, when buying a lottery ticket.

warspite1

Maybe you should seek a refund

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

Usually when the generations involved in a war are extinct, time is ripe for a scientifically sound study of events. So we are not quite there yet..

That process has been going on for WW II for 20ish years or so. When I was in college, there was a text published that was immediately branded as a revisionist pro German propaganda piece. The historian who wrote it (and you'll have to forgive me, I no longer remember the name of the book or the author) essentially argued that the traditional causal theory - ie.. WW 2 was an act of German aggression and the blame lies with Hitler - was incorrect. His thesis was that global stability is the result of every nation asserting their own national interests, in effect everyone pushing against everyone else creating a state of equilibrium. World War 2 was the result of the other European powers (and to a lesser extent, America) failing to assert their own interests thereby creating a void in international diplomacy. And we all know how nature abhors a vacuum.

That theory isn't nearly as controversial today as it was when I was in college.

A.J.P. Taylor "The Origins of the Second World War" ???

That description doesn't quite match, and that book came out in 1961. But it was the first to point that "Hitler did it" is a bit too simple.

No, but the book I'm remembering cited Taylor more than a few times.

have not seen it but apparently this Finnish Film about the Winter War is quite good... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098437/

I just wonder why they didn't make a movie about this engagement:http://wikimapia.org/10511899/Parker-s- ... e-Fraiture
Fury clearly seems to be partly based upon it. It is every bit as good a story and more importantly for me it really happened.
It does real.

I wouldn't classify it as the best but The Flowers of War was quite good. And after watching it I had to research and verify that the Chinese Nationalists were indeed equipped with what we'd all call "German" helmets.

ORIGINAL: Zartacla

That process has been going on for WW II for 20ish years or so. When I was in college, there was a text published that was immediately branded as a revisionist pro German propaganda piece. The historian who wrote it (and you'll have to forgive me, I no longer remember the name of the book or the author) essentially argued that the traditional causal theory - ie.. WW 2 was an act of German aggression and the blame lies with Hitler - was incorrect. His thesis was that global stability is the result of every nation asserting their own national interests, in effect everyone pushing against everyone else creating a state of equilibrium. World War 2 was the result of the other European powers (and to a lesser extent, America) failing to assert their own interests thereby creating a void in international diplomacy. And we all know how nature abhors a vacuum.

That theory isn't nearly as controversial today as it was when I was in college.

warspite1

Interesting points although personally I cannot subscribe to this.

His thesis was that global stability is the result of every nation asserting their own national interests, in effect everyone pushing against everyone else creating a state of equilibrium.

Sounds like the build up to WWI - and we know how that ended up.....

World War 2 was the result of the other European powers (and to a lesser extent, America) failing to assert their own interests thereby creating a void in international diplomacy.

WWII or a war of some description would have happened even if other powers tried to assert their own interests (albeit that if the Western powers (with the Poles and Czechs maybe joining them from the east) had invaded Germany in 1936-1938 - when any conflict would have likely been very brief).

If ever there was a bogeyman - a cause of war - it was Adolf Hitler. The west did what they could, but there was nothing - not appeasement and not the threat of war (as he later proved) - that was going to stop this madman from bringing war to Europe.

World War II was the result of Adolf Hitler coming to power.

Many would argue it was the result of the Versailles treaty that (supposedly) ended WWI, but as Foch said "this isn't peace, it's an armistice for twenty years".

In other words, yes Hitler made things much worse, and likely much sooner, but chances were very high that many of the same countries would be fighting again eventually - after 1919.

They even messed up the Peace so badly, two of the Powers changed sides...

ORIGINAL: warspite1
World War II was the result of Adolf Hitler coming to power.

That is as true as it is incomplete. It is quite interesting to investigate the economical and political dynamics of the interwar period. Fascinating era actually!

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Many would argue it was the result of the Versailles treaty that (supposedly) ended WWI, but as Foch said "this isn't peace, it's an armistice for twenty years".

In other words, yes Hitler made things much worse, and likely much sooner, but chances were very high that many of the same countries would be fighting again eventually - after 1919.

They even messed up the Peace so badly, two of the Powers changed sides...

I think the German aided Lenin coup and resulting rise of communism (not yet stalinism) in Russia was a forming factor for the political landscape of the interwar era. Much of the political maneuvering in the 20's by the Versails victor powers was to contain the Cominter sphere of influence.

Germany was in a very fragile state politically and economically. Germany couldn't pay the demanded reparations, so France took the Ruhegebiet, the other industrial area besides Silecia (which went to Poland). So Germany did only thing left .. if you need more money, you print more money. Easy right.. except the hyperinflation this brought with it. Hyperinflation kills savings, which in turn kills the middle class. So you were left with the poor, and rich and the newly poor. Nice breeding ground for social revolts!

All in all a resemblance of todays Ukraine, perhaps. Not a direct parallel, but not a bad one either. I personally think a communist coups was at least as likely as a fascist one. I also think historical events are not random. Perhaps the powers that be decided, the maniac was the lesser weevil ..

ORIGINAL: Dabrion

ORIGINAL: warspite1
World War II was the result of Adolf Hitler coming to power.

That is as true as it is incomplete. It is quite interesting to investigate the economical and political dynamics of the interwar period. Fascinating era actually!

warspite1

I agree, the whole era is intriguing, I just don't buy the idea that Hitler wasn't to blame. Yes there are a ton of factors that caused / helped his rise to power, but once in charge, there was one outcome and one outcome only. The only question was what form any war would take, not that he was going to start one.

The usual argument is not about whether Hitler would have inevitably led Germany to war, but rather if the Allies had the will/capability to oppose him earlier, whether he could have stayed in power, and then whether that is thus the fault of the Allies. The amount of power Hitler held on September 1st, 1939, was not the same as how much he had in January, 1933 - that grew throughout the 1930s and only gradually became absolute.

The Allies had their own internal politics to consider, including the sentiments of democratic publics, so in some ways, it is amazing they did finally declare war on Hitler over a country on the other side of Germany.

Then there is a different approach to the history, more "conspiracy" minded, that looks at balance of trade and international monetary issues and the famous old banking families, etc., that I've never read that closely.