I was just watching a doco on Nat Geo that was one of six episodes on World War II; I think it was called Apocalypse or something like that.
As a parent, what I found most difficult to watch was all the footage of crying children, either kissing goodbye to their dads at train stations / ports, being forced to put on gas masks, or screaming in convoys of civilians fleeing townships ahead of the advancing blitz. The most shocking footage I saw was that of Stukka (sp?) bombers unloading on a human convoy fleeing Paris on foot that was clearly dominated by women, children, prams, elderly and farm animals. It was truly disgusting. As someone who has been blessed to have been born after any conflict where we have deployed on a large scale, and not having served in any armed forces, I can’t really appreciate what goes through the minds of those directly involved; in particular the horror that those young minds must have gone through (not really understanding why it was all going on).
I have such a naïve mind to think that modern societies share my disgust on such a large scale that they would not allow this to happen again. I can picture large scale violence occurring in Africa (poverty and lack of education / equality for women); I regard the middle east as largely a land of basket cases. I’m not sure why I see Eastern Europe as being more likely to commit atrocities than their Western counterparts ( I guess I’m recalling Serbian tactics etc from relatively recent times). But I have a hard time thinking that the majority of the population in many civilised countries would allow a repeat of the world conflicts.
Are we any less likely to go down such a path again than we were at those times? Is their enough shame in the way we treated others in the past to vow not again? Have we not learnt anything and moved forward as a species?
I look at the Ukraine conflict and think about scenarios where NATO forces go in and start counterattacking Russian forces in Ukraine sovereignty. I can picture individual leaders such as Putin being sufficiently stubborn to get drawn into something more serious but would their citizens be ready to start a global conflict and stand behind such a leader?
What sort of scenarios might play out in the future that could cause such destruction? The footage of complete cities being levelled made me think about the economic impact of not just rebuilding in years to come, but the cost of war as it happens (fuel, munitions etc). World markets mean that everyone is going to be feeling the pinch. It’s staggering to think of the opportunity cost of wars gone by and things that could have been built / places that could have been developed / living standards as a whole that might otherwise have been. How can we not see this?
Anyway really just a rant having watched the doco tonight. I guess it was about 25 years between the 1st and 2nd global conflict, and about 70 years and counting since then, so maybe there’s a glimmer of hope.
First of all, NATO isn’t going to intervene in Ukraine. If Russia invades, there will be a lot of outcry on the part of the international community, but we aren’t going to fight Russia over Ukraine. Now, the Baltic Republics that are in NATO? That’s a different story.
Second, the possibility of war between great powers is tempered by nuclear weapons. While there is always the possibility that someone (like Putin) might foment war between nuclear armed states, I think it’s not very likely because no one can predict how a war between two nuclear armed countries will progress. There will always be the temptation to use them, especially on the losing side, or if a bloody stalemate occurs, and I think this keeps WWIII fairly unlikely.
That being said, there is plenty of very horrific acts still going in the world. Witness what the Serbs did Srebrenica, for example. Things like that can and still do happen, perhaps not on the scale of WWII, but still horrible nonetheless.
The core nature of men hasn’t changed, we just have better tools for killing. These tools tend to temper some of us. But at the end of the day, there will be large full scale wars. Remember, WW1 was the war to end all wars. What makes life exciting is we never know when it might happen so we all live the best we can. Life comes at you fast.
I think nuclear weapons and MAD theory pretty much erased the possibility of war between superpowers, but then again, China and Russia had a small spat in '69 that could have gotten a lot worse. I don’t think there are any countries that suicidal to begin a large scale war or territorial expansion like Japan and Germany did in the 30’s and 40’s. I can see China raising the stakes in Asia though and possibly going to war with a smaller South East Asian country that might draw the US in.
I would say less likely but not necessarily unlikely. My impression is there was practically no “anti-war” movements worth mentioning up until the 20th century and even then not much until the latter half of the century.
My impression is there was practically no “anti-war” movements worth mentioning up until the 20th century and even then not much until the latter half of the century.
I think the Peloponnesian War is worth mentioning, if just because one of the anti-war faction was Aristophanes. Who wrote Lysistrata, the comedy about women refusing sex until the men stop all the war nonsense.
You really have to convince (brainwash) large groups of otherwise normal people that a whole other country full of people are bad enough to kill. You need to make them sub-human. We can do that well with ISIS or Al Queda, who’s members are by definition dangerous, war mongering savages, but I don’t think you’ll be able to convince a large group of people that “Germans” or “Russians” are bad. With almost everybody able to access various sources of information via the internet and make up their own minds, I don’t see country wide support being thrown behind military measures like they were in WW1 and WW2.
I also don’t see most governments pulling the strings of war for the same motivations that were previously used, like empire building. This sounds more like crazy talk, but I think more power lies in large corporations then most governments and I believe, for the most part, that large scale wars are bad for business in our new global economy.
Awww, that’s cute. It must be the Canadian in you.
To your first paragraph, I give you the widespread anti-Muslim sentiment that I have seen throughout the US. To your second, I give you the huge ‘defense’ contracting business that developed during and after our jaunt through Iraq and Afghanistan. I’m not talking about Blackwater - all the big contractors like GD, BAE, Mantech, Excelis, and so many others profited almost immeasurably by the war, and those are just the ones that I had direct and personal experience with while deployed.
To your first point:
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
To your second point:
No shit there is a large industry that benefits from war. That’s not what we’re talking about. In a WW3 type scenario, say between US and China and their allies, the companies like the ones your mention that would benefit would be far outweighed by the larger economic destruction that would ensue. Because of that, I believe there are more pressures to avoid that type of large scale war then there would be in support of it from those who would benefit.
funny - i’m actually preparing a lecture on this as we speak, for a course i’m teaching on ecological anthropology. i think to some extent it comes down to a question over the fundamental nature of our species: are we peaceful or warlike? hobbes versus rousseau, i suppose, but also lee versus pinker.
in terms of the large-scale forces, i think we can expect conflicts over resources in future, so anything that feeds into ecological stresses (processes like climate change, deforestation, pollution, population growth, etc) will also feed into conflict.
funny - i’m actually preparing a lecture on this as we speak, for a course i’m teaching on ecological anthropology. i think to some extent it comes down to a question over the fundamental nature of our species: are we peaceful or warlike? hobbes versus rousseau, i suppose, but also lee versus pinker.
in terms of the large-scale forces, i think we can expect conflicts over resources in future, so anything that feeds into ecological stresses (processes like climate change, deforestation, pollution, population growth, etc) will also feed into conflict.
-mike
Disagree. That may have been the case pre-nuclear weapons, but conflicts over resources pales in comparison to the destruction that even a few nuclear weapons can wreak. You can’t presuppose conflicts without taking into consideration the weapons that could very well be used.
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
Disagree. That may have been the case pre-nuclear weapons, but conflicts over resources pales in comparison to the destruction that even a few nuclear weapons can wreak. You can’t presuppose conflicts without taking into consideration the weapons that could very well be used.
Spot
Thirsty people are going to be pretty motivated to find water. In a scenario where global large scale droughts and famines are occurring, I could see two nuclear states fighting over resources.
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
That was done to achieve a political end. I suppose some state could do something but more likely it will be a stateless group so they’re unlikely to have any cities to bomb.
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
I don’t know, would the US force all American Muslims to wear patches with moons on them to identify themselves as muslims? Would the US steal all their belongings then start sending Muslims to forced labour camps and eventually gas chambers?
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
I don’t know, would the US force all American Muslims to wear patches with moons on them to identify themselves as muslims? Would the US steal all their belongings then start sending Muslims to forced labour camps and eventually gas chambers?
No, but there may be enough support for war and an occupation which is what we were talking about.
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
I don’t know, would the US force all American Muslims to wear patches with moons on them to identify themselves as muslims? Would the US steal all their belongings then start sending Muslims to forced labour camps and eventually gas chambers?
No, but there may be enough support for war and an occupation which is what we were talking about.
I believe the OP was talking about another massive world war actually, not another Iraq or Afghanistan.
Is the anti-muslim sentiment still enough to wage full on war an occupation of Iraq/Afgan and possibly more in terms of Iran/Syria/God knows who else? Would the public really support that? It’s not exactly like the anti-Jewish sentiment that was prevalent in Europe in the 30’s-40’s was it?
Cities were bombed into oblivion, women, children and all during WW2. Do you really think a general public would accept that sort of behaviour from it’s government in this day and age? I think the “Us vs Them” mentality that existed to the degree required to make that possible isn’t around to that degree in most places.
What do you think would happen if there was another large scale attack on US soil? What about if it was chemical / biological weapons killing thousands or tens of thousands?
I don’t know, would the US force all American Muslims to wear patches with moons on them to identify themselves as muslims? Would the US steal all their belongings then start sending Muslims to forced labour camps and eventually gas chambers?
No, but there may be enough support for war and an occupation which is what we were talking about.
I believe the OP was talking about another massive world war actually, not another Iraq or Afghanistan.
So now I have to stay on topic and read before responding! This place is getting absurd!
Kidding aside, I don’t think it’s incomprehensible to have another large scale war. Maybe not on the scale of WW2, but regional (ie entire Middle East) or between two large powers. We’re lucky to live in relative luxury. There are a lot of people in the world that don’t have nearly as much to lose as we do, and it would be a lot easier to motivate them to fight.
Not sure how true it is since I can’t remember where I read it, but there is more anti American sentiment in Russia today than there was during the cold war.