= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
skeptical_lurker comments on Non-standard politics - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (231)
I'm a pro-U.S. military libertarian. I have the standard free market libertarian beliefs but think that the world is a vastly better place because of U.S. military power which has done much to reduce the harm that governments cause. Basically, I find it historically exceptional that the United States doesn't use its military dominance to rule or extract tribute from rich but relatively weak nations such as Canada, Japan, and much of Western Europe. I attribute the post-WWII peace in Western Europe and South America mostly to the fact that the U.S. would slap down an attempt by one country to invade another.
The modern world is different from the past in many ways, such as NATO, the UN, nukes, vast international trade, rapid communications, power moving away from the church and aristocracy, and horror at the vast death toll of the world wars. I couldn't imagine Canada invading the US if the Canadians suddenly developed an unstoppable superweapon, and even if the US became completely isolationist I doubt Germany would invade France again any time soon. The west has too much trade, too much communication, too much tourism to want to fight even if NATO, the UN, the EU all shut down.
On the other hand, the fact that the US gave Germany money for rebuilding in the immediate aftermath of WWII really is an unprecedented act of generosity.
While that's a valid observation, similar points were made just before WW1... Also you did notice how one European nation, Russia, invaded another European nation, Ukraine, just this year -- right?
Not generosity. The US was building barriers against Stalin's European ambitions.
Far more people have visited other countries now than in 1914. Having said that, once France and Germany were connected by trains it does seem a bit stranger that they would want to fight.
And the Russia stock markets crashed afterwards. But the war in the Ukraine is pretty limited with only a few thousand casualties, if it wasn't for the amount of trade esp. gas with Russia, the war might have escalated far more.
Incidentally, I'm not sure Russia counts as part of 'the west'.
I know, but despite that it still seems very charitable compared to the treatment of the vanquished in previous wars. If only the allies had shown the same wisdom after WWI...
The war in Ukraine started with Russia just grabbing an important and lucrative chunk of territory: the Crimea. The West said: "Um.. err... OK."
What you probably mean is "not vindictive". The US was following self-interest, not doing charity.
Depending on who you ask. Others would say that the war started with a US-backed coup against Ukraine's democratically elected government.
Sure, I am aware of such people, but listening to them tends to lead to severe brain damage :-/
I thought part of it was Germany starting WW2 as a result of resentment at reparations, so a more generous approach was tried.
The Marshall Plan was not Germany-specific, it provided money for rebuilding of the entire Western Europe. It also coexisted with severe restrictions on German economy during the first post-war years, e.g.:
Incidentally, Germany stopped paying reparations long before Hitler came to power. Not that that stopped various German governments from blaming Germany's economic problems on them.
I dunno, it also gave lots of money to Britain too, which is harder to explain that way. (And I just learned from Wikipedia it also offered money to the Soviet Union and its allies, though I guess it expected them to turn it down.)
Sort of. Well-fed Germans excel at killing and would have been very useful to the United States in a WWIII.
If the US became completely isolationist, including pulling out all support from NATO and dismantling the nuclear umbrella, I'd predict the next Franco-German war in 20 years max (possibly sooner).
Edit: since it wasn't clear judging by the replies, I never said that the war would start with a German attack on France.
As a Frenchman with German friends, and family near the border, this seems outrageously stupid.
Why? There were Frenchman with German friends near the border before the two world wars as well.
I'm not saying that friendships would prevent a war, I'm saying that I know people on both sides of the border and that from both point of views the idea of war is ludicrous and unthinkable. The French don't hate the Germans, the Germans don't hate the French, and the kind of flag-waving gun-toting nationalism you'd get in the US or China or Russia is highly unfashionable.
Predicting Franco-German war on a French talk show would probably get you laughed off stage ...
Give them a decade or two under austerity, that will change.
Which what credence?
Why the heck should Germany want to wage war in the next 20 years on France?
Why should an isolationist US lead to a weaker EU instead of the EU coming more together?
Ehrr... France is a nuclear power. Wholly independently so - It isn't like the british deterrent which might get a lot more expensive without US support, the French nukes are French. Made in France, mounted on french rockets, in french submarines that are propelled by french reactors. "Has a firing solution for washington DC right along with the one for Moscow" is what I am saying. Nobody is invading them.
This seems very unlikely to me. Could you explain what you think would cause this war?
Probably the French getting annoyed at the real or perceived German takeover of their country through the banking system.