@cole Said
I merely answered a question. It wasn't wrong either. Then you go into some nonsense about Ambalances? I also don't support anyone, nor do I have "any people" nor do I condone any behaviour on either side that detracts from the job at hand. I've clearly stated how i came to my decision and it wasn't swayed by the constant media drivel you keep using to back up your decision. If you wish to chat more about this message me directly instead of hijacking threads.
It's only media drivel when it shows your argument up in a bad light. If a Remain demonstration had done the same thing, you'd have been on it like a rash. And as for ME hijacking the thread... hey folks... go back down the line and see who posted first on that topic...!!
Sadly for you though, YOUR attempt to hijack the thread has failed dismally and I'm glad about that.
Enough of Cole's troublemaking agitation though.....
I've been sitting back and reading the comments on this thread as they've arisen and as with every discussion on the subject of warfare, no real conclusion is drawn and few.... if any... opinions have been changed.
Such is the way of things when we use an extreme for our discussion template.
As I've stated before... It's unfortunate that the extreme case of Hitler is always used and presented as the norm for any cause of conflict. There can be no doubt that WWII WAS the most extreme example of the human race going to war and the consequences of that decision.
Unfortunately, when that template is set down, the opinions become more polarised and less moderate. Those who view war as "inevitable" will argue that it is impossible to deal with any tyrant because they will assume (falsely) that every dictator or despot is another Hitler. They aren't. Some will set out only to oppress their own people rather than rule the world.... some will engage only in localised wars, over national boundaries or some such. Some will choose to attack an ideological enemy through guerilla tactics such as terrorism.
Those people are NOT Adolph Hitler. They have nothing remotely resembling the political apparatus, ambition, resources or resolve to attempt what he did.
Not every despotic regime is run by an Adolph Hitler and to conflate them as such is a falsehood that drags all conversations about conflict into an inextricable mire.
Not only this, but it is entirely backward-looking. Taking a time in history that is unchangeable and asking "What could we have done about it?" The question should be; "What would we have done if we had the facilities at our disposal that we have now?"
At least that argument is forward looking in that if.... heaven forbid... another genuine Hitler arose.... with the same political machinery.... with the same aims and ambitions.... and with a population that was as willing to follow him.... and with a military machine of similar power.... then we could reasonably take a line of action that would be effective in preventing a global conflagrations.
This is why I referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a despotic, superpower, driven by an extreme ideology, and with the massive military resources at its disposal, attempting an act of aggression that would surely have led to a global conflict the outcome of which would have been calamitous for the entire human race.
That situation was defused by diplomacy, not force of arms. This was the closest we have come to global conflict since the end of WWII and the Communist regime in the Soviet Union was as despotic, ambitious and aggressive as that of Nazi Germany. It is a fair comparison.
So, it can be seen that such circumstances... in the modern era.... CAN contain a tyrant. Whether or not quarantining Germany and then using diplomacy.... the soft word backed up by a big stick.... would have prevented WWII is a matter of opinion. That's all it can be. But I think it's a valid one.
In my opinion, it would certainly have prevented the invasion of Poland which was the trigger for Britain (not England) and France's declarations of war which was what gave Hitler the "legitimate" excuse he was looking for to let his armies loose on Europe.
All tyrants seek legitimacy for their actions. So don't give them one. Rather, contain them, then get them to the negotiating table, then dismantle their arguments one by one.
I know there will be a lot of "Whatiffery" to follow this. What if so and so did this?... what if such and such happened?..... what if the moon was made of cheese?
I'll indulge in a bit of Whatiffery of my own: What if we listen to their grievances.... find out what they want.... apologise and make redress for any hurts they have suffered.... attempt to come to a compromise that would give everybody at least something so that nobody loses face, nobody is humiliated, nobody gets nothing at all...
All this without a shot being fired.
I don't think it's impossible for smart people.... and diplomats are, usually smart people... to anticipate most scenarios although as Von Motke is alleged to have said "No plan ever survives first contact with the enemy." Then you have to be flexible. That's not impossible either.
But try not seeing them as an enemy in the first place, rather as people who can be reasoned with. But firmly, honestly and fairly.
I repeat... not every regime is run by a Hitler. Try to imagine that and base your reasoning on something less than the worst case scenario from a time when we didn't have what we have now.