Several works by Poul Anderson, including two of his future history series, begin in the aftermath of a nuclear war. I used to think that nuclear war and World War III were synonymous and that MAD prevented the latter. However, here is a suggestion from Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop today. Are we already in World War III? World War II took a couple of years to grow from local and regional wars into a world war. Are we at that stage with WWIII?
Here is another Andrean thought, this time drawing on history. The Hundred Years War was the real World War I, the Napoleonic Wars were the real WWII and subsequent global conflicts should be renumbered accordingly. Now that such conflicts are numbered, they need not be periodically renamed.
I think that we can agree that our Italian Fascist (former or otherwise) friend above his brother's Old Pier Bookshop has not let us down and I don't feel like exercising any more grey cells for the rest of this evening. Van Rijn can come in and sound off if he likes.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI dunno, the Hundred Years War was not literally a continuous struggle lasting a century. There were long intervals of truce or even attempts by England and France at making peace. And the wars after the downfall of Napoleon in 1815 tended to be short (before 1914), with the Crimean War of 1852-55 being the longest conflict. And none of these became desperate, life and death struggles fought to the bitter end. Cabinet wars with only limited ends, gains, losses in mind.
Ad astra! Sean
Andrea would be able to argue his case but I am far from thinking that he is right about everything.
ReplyDeleteBoth the World Wars were about German strategic mistakes.
ReplyDeleteOf the two, the first was the worst because there hadn't been any major wars between advanced powers for 40 years, and military theory had gotten increasingly divorced from reality and poisoned with wishful thinking.
Even the lessons of the Boer War and the Russo-Japanese war were disregarded and misinterpreted.
The Germans thought they could knock France out quickly and then turn on the Russians. Close, but no cigar -- Joffre woke up to what the Germans were doing -just- in time to shuttle his forces to the left flank in time to defeat the German turning movement.
World War Two wasn't what Hitler wanted.
He wanted a series of short, sharp campaigns and then an agreement with Britain, in which he got a free hand in Europe and Germany gave Britain a free hand outside Europe. He wasn't planning on conquering the world, just Europe -- his successors would take over the world.
That would have used Britain as a buffer to keep the USA out of European politics, while he attacked the USSR.
Up until the summer of 1940, Hitler got what he wanted. He disposed of Poland, turned the rest of eastern Europe into German satellites, and knocked out France.
Then he ran into Churchill. If Churchill hadn't been PM, Halifax would have -- and Halifax wanted a deal with Hitler, and advocated it in the Cabinet until Churchill slapped him down.
If Halifax had been PM -- Churchill nearly died a dozen times from 1917 on -- Hitler would have gotten his deal, and would probably have succeeded in conquering the USSR.
That was a close-run thing in 1941-42, and if he hadn't been distracted by the war with Britain and after December 1941 with the US, he'd probably have pulled it off.
Nuclear weapons are almost certainly the reason we didn't have WW3 in the 1950's or 60's. Mutual Assured Destruction deterred the Soviet Union.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that isn't an eternal guarantee. The Soviet leadership was marginally rational about that sort of thing. Other people may not be, or may be deluded by wishful thinking.
Thank you for this summary.
ReplyDeleteThinking that you can knock out a particular opponent quickly seems to be a regular mistake.
It is an indictment of our rulers that, even after the lessons of two World Wars, only MAD stopped them from waging a Third.
Without nuclear weapons, it would have continued until only one Great Power was left standing.
DeleteActually, it's an "indictment" of humans in general. War is IWHBD. It's What Human Beings Do.
DeleteTo qualify as a *world* war, a conflict has to include fighting in a large fraction of the world. The earliest conflict that might qualify on that point is the wars in which Spain was in conflict with other European powers which included fighting in the Americas. Eg: the raids by Drake on the Spanish colonies & shipping along the Pacific (ironic name noted) coast of S. America. The French/English conflicts in the 1700s with fighting in the Americas & India are probably closer to being a *world* war.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Mr. Stirling and Jim!
ReplyDeleteMr. Stirling: Just a few, rather meandering thoughts.
That's one of the disadvantages of relatively long periods of peace, strategic thinking divorced from reality and tainted by wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
Besides what you said about Joffre waking up to the danger the French armies were in, I read the Germans allowed their nerve to be shaken by the sooner than expected Russian invasion of East Prussia and transferring two entire corps from the western to the eastern front--at a time when they just might have enough to ensure victory in the west. And that the German Crown Prince protested at these corps being taken from the army he commanded for exactly that reason, but was overruled.
IIRC before WW II started the German General Staff advised Hitler Germany would not truly be ready for war before 1943, and favored caution and restraint. Which Hitler overruled.
Yes, Hitler hoped to make a deal with the UK along the lines outlined. IIRC Halifax feared a long war would bankrupt the UK and break the British Empire, which was why he wanted that deal with Germany. Churchill was just as determined to preserve the Empire, but he rightly decided a long lasting Nazi was too existential a threat to the UK to be tolerated.
I have wondered what might have happened if Hitler had postponed OPERATION BARBAROSSA till he was disentangled from the war in the west. He didn't have to invade the USSR in 1941--Stalin was his ally and doing everything he could to help Germany, BARBAROSSA could have waited.
Another blunder Hitler made was declaring war on the US after Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. The last thing he needed was the US mobilizing its immense resources to fighting Germany as well as Japan. The longer the US focused on Japan and the Pacific, and not Germany as well, the better for Hitler. Japan was his ally, but there wasn't much they could to help each other, so it made sense not to declare war on the US. Churchill was deadly afraid that would happen!
I agree, the grim men in the Soviet Politburo retained enough caution not to push their luck and attempt a nuclear war with the US. A big problem being lunatic regimes hopped up on ideological fanaticism or sheer recklessness might use nukes.
Jim: I basically agree, beginning with the war of the League of Augsburg and the war of the Spanish Succession, France and the UK began fighting a series of wars spreading to the Americas and India, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
ReplyDeleteAnd that is why I don't believe war is going to be abolished. Something to be managed, not eliminated. IWHBD
Ad astra! Sean
Of course it will be abolished (if we survive) just as cannibalism and execution of heretics have been abolished. Future generations will no longer bomb cities when bombs are no longer manufactured because, as is perfectly possible, a majority of electors and legislators have come to realize that advanced technology should be invested in the full development of human potential instead of in mass slaughter and destruction.
ReplyDeleteKaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe you, all you are offering is Utoppianism. Nor do political forms matter because humans have fought wars under all possible forms of gov't. Reread Anderson's preface to SEVEN CONQUESTS. The violence of the State is a proceeding of society, any society. IWHBD.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteReasoned argument about different social conditions and their consequences is not Utopianism.
People have not fought wars under all possible forms of government because we have not had all possible forms of government yet. People will not fight wars when they are not organized to do so.
The violence of the State is not a proceeding of any possible society. INWHBD. That is a slander on humanity. We can have a society in which abundance makes economic competition and therefore also armed conflicts redundant. Weapons cannot be used if they are not manufactured.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteThen we have to agree to disagree. I see no evidence for the kind of political system or society you hope for. All I'm getting is what a lawyer might call an "assuming of facts not in evidence."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteWe are not trying to agree! This misconception still dogs us.
There is every piece of evidence that society has changed, that it is changing, that social change is accelerating and that, if we do have an indefinite future ahead of us, then we will continue to change out of all recognition as we have already done in the past.
Are you asking for specific evidence that a particular kind of change will definitely happen in future? I have already said that such evidence is both impossible and unnecessary. We are only talking about, and can only talk about, possibilities. Of course you see no evidence that a particular kind of political system or society will definitely come into existence. Neither do I. That is not what we are talking about.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteWhat I am trying to say is that the "changes" you talk about have not changed human beings. My impression is that you expect those "changes" to do exactly that.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that you do not understand anything that I am saying! Two people growing up in completely different social contexts have completely different assumptions, expectations, opportunities, aspirations, motivations, lifestyles, potentialites etc. Eventually, yes, if the societies are completely different, then the people are completely different. How can there be any unchanging core when we are already products of change? There was a time before there were people. The animal nature of our pre-human ancestors did not remain permanently unchanging and, if it had done so, then no human beings would ever have begun to exist. It is a failure of imagination to look at people as they have been through history and to say that they must remain that way however long they exist into an indefinite future. Everything is subject to change and, if it were not, then we would not be here.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI believe that I do understand you--I simply don't believe your arguments.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteSure. If I state an argument and someone simply doesn't accept it, then there's nothing more to be said.
Two people growing up in completely different societies do NOT have completely different assumptions, expectations etc? Organisms having changed into human beings will NOT change again forever more?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteFirst, you are hoping for something that does not exist: some kind of completely different society. Second, those persons growing up in allegedly completely different societies, if human, are still going to have all the drives, passions, instincts, etc., common to all human beings. And that will include the drive to be competitive, aggressive, etc.
You are hoping for something that does not exist and which I don't believe can or will exist.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteOf course I am hoping for (and many people are working towards) something that does not exist yet because it is still in the future! That is what hope and working towards are all about! Of course it does not exist YET. Of course you don't believe that it can or will exist. Why do we keep repeating all this?
There is no drive to be competitive or aggressive, certainly not aggressive! People have had to compete in conditions of scarcity, deprivation and poverty which need not exist in the future, especially not when technologically produced wealth is abundant. Many (not all) become aggressive if pushed around and treated badly but not otherwise. Look at all the times when people do not attack or want to kill each other.
Why do you want to keep repeating this argument? I will keep making the same reply.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in the realism/desirability of what you hope for, due to such ideas being founded on a false view of the human race. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
ReplyDeleteBut we have already accepted the fact that we disagree! Surely you have not still been trying to get agreement?
"A false view of the human race" means a view that you disagree with. You still think that there is a simple identity between your views and reality. Reality is bigger than anyone's views. At most, our views are only better or worse approximations to the truth.
What I hope for is simply conditions in which people are enabled and allowed to respond to each other with respect or at worst with indifference as they naturally do when they are living in circumstances where no one is causing any problems for them. We aim this Saturday to outnumber the anti-immigrant lobby on the streets of London and to turn the tide against Farage and Robinson.
You mentioned "power" again recently. I have replied about power as ability to coerce many times but that and similar phrases have merely been repeated.
Paul.