Is War a Problem Solver?

[ScottishJohn]

How was the dismantling of the Japanese imperial empire and Nazi Germany a short term solution? We stopped the rape of Asia and the Holocaust through pure physical violence.

Certainly there are wars that do not solve problems, but there are clear-cut exceptions.

War in itself does not solve anything. Like I said, it brings you back to the same negotiating table you were sitting round before the war, the balance of power may have changed but the problems remain, and have been added to by the destructive and blunt instrument that war is.

The fighting against the Japanese in WWII was just as destructive and divisive in Asia as the Japanese invasion and occupation would have been, in fact Japan managed to overrun a great deal of Asia before they were forced to surrender. Even after they had surrendered we had the same problems to solve as we had before the war, plus some new ones.

 

[k]

Does war ever solve anything?

Ask the Hittites, the Carthaginians, and the people of Jericho, for starters.

How about the Spanish-Moor wars of the Renaissance period? That solved a few problems, didn't it? World War II obviously solved a whole mess of problems.

Were they permanently solved? In many cases, no. But then, changing a lightbulb solves a problem. It's not a permanent fix either.

Comparing a lightbulb to war shows how much War is supported by some.

WWII didn't solve any real problems (other than the obvious stopping of the Holocaust--felt I had to say that lest some take the low road and try to rail me for it) and it clearly created bigger ones we are facing today.

 

[k]

How was the dismantling of the Japanese imperial empire and Nazi Germany a short term solution? We stopped the rape of Asia and the Holocaust through pure physical violence.

Certainly there are wars that do not solve problems, but there are clear-cut exceptions.

I must admit, it is not surprising how the pro-war camp flocks to WWII to help justify the position.

Russia defeated Germany, not the US.

The US helped stop the rape of Asia before we ever entered WWII. In fact, it was those actions that prompted Japan to attack first because they knew the US would attack.

They were short term solutions because we are still dealing w/ the same exact problems today.

 

[Glaz]

Russia defeated Germany, not the US.

Very obviously it was a team, or 'allied' effort that defeated the Axis powers, not any one nation on its own.

As for your OP, war IMO creates as many, if not more, problems than it solves.

 

[k]

Very obviously it was a team, or 'allied' effort that defeated the Axis powers, not any one nation on its own.

SS troops were taken to the battlefields against the Russians in trucks built by Ford.

It wasn't as simple as us against them. If the US had not been so supportive of Hitler for all those years it is quite possible WWII could have been avoided. Of course, Europe shoulders larger responsibility for allowing the anti-Semitism to flourish as it did.

My point is that War could be avoided altogether if it didn't make so much damn money for certain people. Make War a non-profitable biz and watch how hard nations work to avoid it.

 

[Glaz]

SS troops were taken to the battlefields against the Russians in trucks built by Ford.

It wasn't as simple as us against them. If the US had not been so supportive of Hitler for all those years it is quite possible WWII could have been avoided. Of course, Europe shoulders larger responsibility for allowing the anti-Semitism to flourish as it did.

My point is that War could be avoided altogether if it didn't make so much damn money for certain people. Make War a non-profitable biz and watch how hard nations work to avoid it.

I thought your point was to diminish the US contribution to defeating the Nazis in order to irritate conservatives.

 

[k]

I thought your point was to diminish the US contribution to defeating the Nazis in order to irritate conservatives.

Guess that's why assumptions are ridiculous.

 

[Glaz]

Guess that's why assumptions are ridiculous.

Thats 'never stopped' you from making them.

 

[CCGirl]

Thats 'never stopped' you from making them.

I believe he was making the point that the USSR lost the most and without them, Germnay would not have been defeated. The "Allies" helped a bit too!


As to the OP.....we spend alot of time as parents teaching our children tolerance and negotiation. We do not permit them to use violence to solve their problems, yet look at the example they see! Adults willing to kill as many people as possible to get their own way! How sad

 

[k]

Thats 'never stopped' you from making them.

So, what did I do to deserve all this personal attention?

What happened to the issue in the thread?


(yes, I have made the mistake of making assumptions in the past but it is not something I do on a regular basis.)

 

[k]

I believe he was making the point that the USSR lost the most and without them, Germnay would not have been defeated. The "Allies" helped a bit too!

Yes, Russia lost over 20 million people....how many Americans are aware of that?

As to the OP.....we spend alot of time as parents teaching our children tolerance and negotiation. We do not permit them to use violence to solve their problems, yet look at the example they see! Adults willing to kill as many people as possible to get their own way! How sad

I'm surprised no criminal defense mimicking the Bush admin has made media coverage yet.

 

[Glaz]

So, what did I do to deserve all this personal attention?

What happened to the issue in the thread?


(yes, I have made the mistake of making assumptions in the past but it is not something I do on a regular basis.)

I did address the issue, I also addressed the ignorant attempt at baiting.

 

[k]

I did address the issue, I also addressed the ignorant attempt at baiting.

Let's see....

SS troops were taken to the battlefields against the Russians in trucks built by Ford.

It wasn't as simple as us against them. If the US had not been so supportive of Hitler for all those years it is quite possible WWII could have been avoided. Of course, Europe shoulders larger responsibility for allowing the anti-Semitism to flourish as it did.

My point is that War could be avoided altogether if it didn't make so much damn money for certain people. Make War a non-profitable biz and watch how hard nations work to avoid it.

The response to this was....

I thought your point was to diminish the US contribution to defeating the Nazis in order to irritate conservatives.

This simultaneously ignored the points of the post while baiting...two birds w/ one stone!

 

[Agrippa]

Neverstop, the crux of your argument seems to be that if war doesn't stop one big issue, say genocide, it is not worthwhile. Here, I think the lightbulb example works very well. Changing a lightbulb doesn't solve the problem either; that new lightbulb is going to burn out one day too. It's a short term solution that will create further problems along the line: I have to go out and spend money to buy more lightbulbs besides going through the effort of installing them. Should I not bother changing the lightbulb then? Of course not. Along the same lines, no, stopping Hitler didn't stop Rawanda and it won't stop Darfur, but that doesn't mean he had to be stopped. So, war will never solve the problems of humanity but it has been necessary numerous times in human history.

And, if I might butt into this conversation...

SS troops were taken to the battlefields against the Russians in trucks built by Ford.

And the Soviet troops were carried in trucks made by Ford and GM factories in both the Urals and the US, with T-34 tanks using an American suspension system, with American made fighter planes protecting them in the air, and eating American food. The American contribution to the Soviet war effort overwhelms whatever support the Nazi's got from the US. American "support" for Germany was in the form of factories constructed there before the war while its support for the Soviet Union was an active supply chain that ran through the course of most of the war.

It wasn't as simple as us against them. If the US had not been so supportive of Hitler for all those years it is quite possible WWII could have been avoided. Of course, Europe shoulders larger responsibility for allowing the anti-Semitism to flourish as it did.

The United States' support for Hitler was very minor and its absence wouldn't have stopped the war.

 

[k]

Neverstop, the crux of your argument seems to be that if war doesn't stop one big issue, say genocide, it is not worthwhile. Here, I think the lightbulb example works very well. Changing a lightbulb doesn't solve the problem either; that new lightbulb is going to burn out one day too. It's a short term solution that will create further problems along the line: I have to go out and spend money to buy more lightbulbs besides going through the effort of installing them. Should I not bother changing the lightbulb then? Of course not. Along the same lines, no, stopping Hitler didn't stop Rawanda and it won't stop Darfur, but that doesn't mean he had to be stopped. So, war will never solve the problems of humanity but it has been necessary numerous times in human history.

Not really, the crux of my argument is two-fold. 1. War is VERY profitable for certain people, therefore it is often a quick option and 2. It does not solve problems, period.

And, if I might butt into this conversation...



And the Soviet troops were carried in trucks made by Ford and GM factories in both the Urals and the US, with T-34 tanks using an American suspension system, with American made fighter planes protecting them in the air, and eating American food. The American contribution to the Soviet war effort overwhelms whatever support the Nazi's got from the US. American "support" for Germany was in the form of factories constructed there before the war while its support for the Soviet Union was an active supply chain that ran through the course of most of the war.



The United States' support for Hitler was very minor and its absence wouldn't have stopped the war.

The US was supplying whoever would take the products and its support for the Third Reich was anything but minor.

 

[Agrippa]

Not really, the crux of my argument is two-fold. 1. War is VERY profitable for certain people, therefore it is often a quick option

That is a generalization that is much overstated. Investors hate the extreme uncertainties and disruptions of war; contrary to interwar conspiracy theories, for example, London bankers did not want to see their country brought into the First World War. Investors love to see the government spend money on their goods (since it has lots of money to spend and generally overpays) but they would much rather see the government buying $50,000 hammers from them than $50,000 bullets.

2. It does not solve problems, period.

What stopped the problem of Hitler then? We can safely state that he was indeed a problem. What about the 7th century Arab invasion of Byzantine Asia Minor? That was a problem. How about the 3rd century wave of barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire? You can bet that was a problem. The answers, respectively, are the armies of the Allied Powers, the Byzantine Army of the Themes, and the Roman Legions. Yes, genocide, nomad raids, and barbarian invasions all existed afterward. The problems would have existed even if the respective armies had let Hitler, the Arabian nomads, and the German barbarian tribes do whatever they wanted. But where is the world a better place? A world where Hitler died in 1945 or a world where Hitler died of natural causes and is followed by one of his minions? A world where the peasants of the Byzantine Minor are driven off their land in the 7th century or a world where they can last until the Turkish invasions of the 13th century? A world where the citizens of Rome continue to enjoy a relatively prosperous life for another century or a world where they slip into the Dark Ages a century earlier?

The US was supplying whoever would take the products and its support for the Third Reich was anything but minor.

Support for USSR was far greater than support for the Third Reich. Germany got some factories and forced American investors to keep their money in Germany (in other words, Americans couldn't have gotten their money out if they had wanted to). The Soviet Union received American factories plus American managment techniques. Look at World War II from an economic/production standpoint. The Germans produced high quality goods but absolutely failed in mass production. American management techniques were the best in the world, allowing them to produce far more per unit of input than their enemies. Those techniques were demonstrated to the Soviet Union and not shown to Germany before the war broke out.

The factories in Germany were all constructed pre-war. Ford and General Motors could not control what happened in those plants; if the SS walked in and demanded the plant build trucks for the army, then by God the plant was going to build trucks for the army. It should be remembered that the US government did the same thing to German factories in the US. Agfa Photo Products, a German owned firm, built guns cameras for American aircraft. Does that mean the Third Reich supported the American war effort?

For reference, here is a list of the trucks used by the Wehrmacht:

Adler, AEG, Afa, Audi, Bergmann, Bergmann-Metallurgique, Bleichert, BMW, Borgward, Brennabor, Breuer, Büssing-NAG, Daimler-Benz (Mercedes-Benz), Demag, Deuliewag, Deutz, DKW, Esslingen, Famo, FAUN, Ford, Framo, Freund, Fuchs, Goliath, Hagedorn, Hamor, Hanomag, Hanno (Hoffmann), Henschel, Horch, Kaelble, Klöckner-Deutz (KHD), Kramer, Kraus-Maffei, Krupp, Lanz, Magirus (Klöckner-Deutz), MAN, Manderbach, Maschinenbau Lüneburg, MIAG, Neander, Normag, NSU, O&K, Opel (GM), Ostner (OD), Phänomen, Primus, Renger, Sachsenberg, Saurer, Schlüter, Stoewer, Talbot (former Goosens), Tempo, Trippel, VW (Volkswagen, KdF), Vögele, Vomag, Wanderer, Zettelmeyer, Ziel-Abegg, and Zündapp.

A quick glance indicates only two American brands: Ford and GM (in the form of their subsidiary Opel). The seven most important manufacturers were Adler, Borgward, Daimler-Benz, Ford Werke AG, MAN, Opel, and Vomag

To that list, we should also list the Austrian truck factories:

Austro-FIAT, Austro-Daimler, Fross-Büssing, Gräf & Stift, ÖAF, Perl, Saurer, and Steyr-Puch

The Czechs also provided a number of factories for the manufacture of trucks:

Jawa, Praga, Skoda, Tatra, and Walter

Yes, there was support from Americans for Hitler. Ford personally sent Hitler 20,000 RM per year, even during the war. The bulk of Hitler's support, however, came from Germans, men like Fritz Thyssen who were tied into the international banking system (and therefore American industry) but not a part of it.

 

[Blackguard_]

Was that how it went? Or which was first, the hen or the egg? "Europe" did her dirty part by flooding -- invading and subjugating and making colonies of -- Islamic countries...............What goes around comes around, I suppose.

Right, Christian Europe flooded Islamic lands only after Islam first went for their countries and resoucres.

Please stop pretending the world was formed in 1800 .

Or, why is Anatolia a Muslim areas today? Why are the Kosovars Muslim to begin with?

France, for instance, went to Northern Africa, Algeria, Marocco, Tunisia.

LOL! What goes areound comes around right? Guess you never heard of the battle Tours and muslim raids into southern France, not to mention all of southern Europe, huh?

And how were those north African countries made muslim in the first place?

 

[Blackguard_]

The Soviet Union received American factories plus American managment techniques.

Add what about lend lease? Didn't we essentially give them(The USSR) all the locomotives they used during the war? and tons of trucks, not just the factories to make them?

I was under the impression Soviet logistics was more or less non-existent without US aid.

 

[Agrippa]

Add what about lend lease? Didn't we essentially give them(The USSR) all the locomotives they used during the war? and tons of trucks, not just the factories to make them?

I was under the impression Soviet logistics was more or less non-existent without US aid.

US logistical support was very important, though it was not all American. The major importance of it was that it allowed the Soviets to concentrate its production on war material and not spend resources on replacing worn locomotives.

 

[ScottishJohn]

Neverstop, the crux of your argument seems to be that if war doesn't stop one big issue, say genocide, it is not worthwhile. Here, I think the lightbulb example works very well. Changing a lightbulb doesn't solve the problem either; that new lightbulb is going to burn out one day too. It's a short term solution that will create further problems along the line: I have to go out and spend money to buy more lightbulbs besides going through the effort of installing them. Should I not bother changing the lightbulb then? Of course not. Along the same lines, no, stopping Hitler didn't stop Rawanda and it won't stop Darfur, but that doesn't mean he had to be stopped. So, war will never solve the problems of humanity but it has been necessary numerous times in human history.

I disagree with this analogy entirely.

Hitler himself was not the main problem and certainly not the only problem - he was a symptom of many problems in Germany, humiliation as a result of our failure to reach a workable peace treaty at the end of WWI, a crippled German economy as a result of the same treaty which he revived by turning it into a war economy, anti semitism was firmly established Hitler just used existing sentiments and built on them, the idea of the Aryan master-race appealed to a people who considered themselves downtrodden, cheated, humiliated and destined to rise again. In fighting the war we pushed the situation to the point where hitler committed suicide. That did not solve the problems which he rode to power on, nor did it remove his followers. We still had to try and round them up, we still had to come to an acceptable peace. In fact we botched that, because of the instability that war brings we handed half of Europe over to Stalin because he was already occupying it, and we had no way of stopping him - this leads to a 40 odd year cold war and countless atrocities. War is rubbish at solving problems, especially if you don't even bother to identify the problems in the first place. The war didn't stop anti semitism, didn't resolve the issue of german nationalism, or bring us a united and peaceful Europe. It got rid of one man who had used all of these issues.