• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WW I, Korea, WW II and Israel; Heads You Win Should Not be Tails I Lose.

JBG

DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2017
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
688
Location
New York City area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.

WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.

Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.

Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.

WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.

Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.

Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.

Let me summarize:

Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:

North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.

In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.

Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?

A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”
 
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.

WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.

Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.

Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.

WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.

Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.

Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.

Let me summarize:

Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:

North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.

In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.

Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?

A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”

Anyone who thinks the conditions placed on Germany after WW1 were the results of the Allies being 'nice' needs to rethink their position. They directly contributed to WW1 being relitigated as WW2.
 
50 years after the 1967 War and Israel victory, Israel is still annexing disputed territory. This goes far beyond your "might/victory makes right" justification.

As UN Resolution 68/262 (27 March 2014) stated regarding the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, nations cannot unilaterally/forceably annex territory that does not legally belong to them.

This doctrine has been the bedrock of international relations/diplomacy since the end of WWII and was the impetus of the international coalition to prevent Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991.
 
Anyone who thinks the conditions placed on Germany after WW1 were the results of the Allies being 'nice' needs to rethink their position. They directly contributed to WW1 being relitigated as WW2.
The "relitigation" should not have happened. WW II was much better handled at the end. Not perfect by any means but better.

50 years after the 1967 War and Israel victory, Israel is still annexing disputed territory. This goes far beyond your "might/victory makes right" justification.
The Arabs started that war. The Israelis invited them to sue for peace after the war. Khartoum and the "three no's" were the answer.

Boo hoo.

As UN Resolution 68/262 (27 March 2014) stated regarding the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, nations cannot unilaterally/forceably annex territory that does not legally belong to them.

This doctrine has been the bedrock of international relations/diplomacy since the end of WWII and was the impetus of the international coalition to prevent Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991.
It was a non-binding GA, not UNSC resolution. Why are the colleges not rife with BDS against Russia?
 
The premise of this thread it that when a party starts a war and loses, the defending side should be allowed to finish it. In the cases of WW I, Korea and Vietnam the aggressors, respectively Germany/Austro-Hungarian Empire, North Korea and North Vietnam started wars. The wars ended in armistices, not in military victories. In all cases complete victory was possible but the West, being “nice” left the losing side to their own devices. In all cases it has leapt us to bite us.

WW I (armistice) – This case is perhaps the least clear. The Austro-Hungarian Empire, tied by treaty and history to Germany (only recently Prussia and other principalities) tried to take over the Balkans, lured by the chaos surrounding the murder of the Archduke of Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. (source). After a long war with unprecedented bloodshed the Austro-Hungarian Empire was split into Austria, Hungary Romania, Bulgaria, Albania and Czechoslovakia, and the Balkans reconstituted into Yugoslavia. However the core of the countries remained intact and were not occupied. The terms of this armistice did not sit easily with a still-intact and independent Austria and Germany. They covertly did not comply with the disarmament mandates of Versailles. All else is history.

Korea (armistice) – Probably the strongest case. Korea was historically under the sway of either Japan or China (source). In or about 1910 Japan seized control. When WW II ended Korea was partitioned between the northern half, occupied by the USSR and the southern half, occupied by the U.S. There was, to my understanding, little reason for this generosity to the U.S.S.R. since they took astonishingly little part in the defeat of Japan in the war. In Europe, at least a colorable argument could be made that they earned a share of the spoils, and effective control of Eastern Europe. When NK invaded in 1950 there was little reason for not conquering and holding NK, reuniting it under South Korea’s military dictatorship.

Since then, NK has clearly not found the status quo acceptable. They are now a nuclear power, leaving the West with little choice but surrender or a full-scale war before NK poses a mortal threat to the civilized world.

WW II – This is an example in the opposite direction, of what happens when there is total victory, mostly by the civilized world. While we have not had “kumbaya” perfection (see above regarding Korea, and also other small wars such as Vietnam and the Middle East), the world has by and large not had major wars. Victory was total. Japan and Germany are not a threat to world safety nor are they likely to be.

Israel (armistice in 1948 and 1956, victory in 1967 and 1973) – Another good example. 1948 and 1956 ended in standstills. The Arabs kept on attacking. In 1967 they closed the Straits of Tiran, threatening to throttle Israel’s imports of oil from Iran. Israel obliterated Egypt’s air force on the ground. The war lasted six days.

Since then the rest of the world has sought to give the Arabs a do-over. Trump finally recognized Israel’s choice of capitals. The Arabs should have sued for peace when they had a chance. Israel won and the world “boo-hoos” at their exercise of the victory. If they were anything like North Vietnam, Myanmar or other victorious countries there would have been a bloodbath.

Let me summarize:

Here are the "heads I win tails you lose" situations:

North Korea invades South Korea, loses, but loses no territory; and
Arabs repeatedly engaged in war, both guerrilla (now called terrorism or asymetrical war) or conventional wars, i.e. 1948, 1967 and 1973 and lose, and Israel is expected to give all the territory back with no assurance of peace.

In the case of North Korea they have, almost since the 1953 cease-fire been seeking to expand their military capability. The free world is urged to "negotiate." The West gave money in 1994. NK did not live up to the terms of the agreement.

Israel won all of its wars. Yet it is expected to return territory. We returned Gaza and did not get peace in return. What's up with that?

A loss in war should severely and permanently penalize the aggressor. Germany and Japan were reduced to second-rate, though affluent powers. I don’t think that’s such a bad fate for the people of the Arab world, as opposed to their “leaders.”

I think you need to take Vietnam off that list. That country is unified, self-governed, and doing nicely.
 
50 years after the 1967 War and Israel victory, Israel is still annexing disputed territory. This goes far beyond your "might/victory makes right" justification.

As UN Resolution 68/262 (27 March 2014) stated regarding the illegal Russian annexation of Crimea, nations cannot unilaterally/forceably annex territory that does not legally belong to them.

This doctrine has been the bedrock of international relations/diplomacy since the end of WWII and was the impetus of the international coalition to prevent Iraq from annexing Kuwait in 1991.

How very selective of you to omit the shenanigans in Africa, South and Central America, let alone China's defacto annexations of Tibet and Nepal.

Doctrines, like international laws, are only of value if they are enforced, you know, like the Monroe Doctrine and the Napoleonic rule in Mexico. Well hell, France was an ally, and brown people can't govern themselves, everyone knows that.

Seems nothing you have to say means a damn thing to the Israelis, or anyone else.
 
I think you need to take Vietnam off that list. That country is unified, self-governed, and doing nicely.

Not only that, the North Vietnamese didn't invade the south. It was a Civil War after kicking out the French colonialists.
 
Not only that, the North Vietnamese didn't invade the south. It was a Civil War after kicking out the French colonialists.

My son toured SE Asia a few years ago and he said Vietnam was the best of the trip. Said the people are doing well, there's small capitalism everywhere, there's none of the vile sex tourists that pollute Cambodia and Thailand. He met a Vietnam Vet who told him he was having a great trip and was being well-treated. Which isn't surprising given that the average person is so young most of them have no memory of the war.
There's so many ways that country could have gone wrong, it's nice they're making a go of it.
 
I suppose it is selective of me since I've lived in mainland Ukraine and Crimea.

If true, you should know better. And you should also remember, Ukrainians welcomed and joined with the Nazis when they arrived.
 
If true, you should know better. And you should also remember, Ukrainians welcomed and joined with the Nazis when they arrived.

Some did yes, 70 years ago. At the time, it seemed like a better choice. Stalin had already starved to death ~7-10 million Ukrainians during the Holodomor (32 and 33).

What they didn't know then of course, is that Hitler planned to enslave and starve the inferior Slavic peoples after he was done killing all the Jews.

In the Ukraine elections of 2014, the far-right parties (Svoboda/Pravy Sektor) failed to meet the 5% vote threshold. There are no far-right wingnuts in the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) nor in the administration of Petro Poroshenko.

By the way, the Nazi Party in the US is alive and well and now aligns with skinheads and white supremacists.
 
Some did yes, 70 years ago. At the time, it seemed like a better choice. Stalin had already starved to death ~7-10 million Ukrainians during the Holodomor (32 and 33).

What they didn't know then of course, is that Hitler planned to enslave and starve the inferior Slavic peoples after he was done killing all the Jews.

In the Ukraine elections of 2014, the far-right parties (Svoboda/Pravy Sektor) failed to meet the 5% vote threshold. There are no far-right wingnuts in the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) nor in the administration of Petro Poroshenko.

By the way, the Nazi Party in the US is alive and well and now aligns with skinheads and white supremacists.

The Tartars of Ukraine helped Stalin, then Hitler. They helped both murder native Christian Ukrainians. They were not Slavic, and had killed Slavs in the past. The Tartars liked killing everyone who wasn't a Tartar. It had nothing to do with being on the political left or right. Still doesn't.

I don't believe you really have any knowledge of the Nazis. Seriously. Claiming the Nazis are alive and well by comparing them to White Supremacists and skinheads in America today, tells me your knowledge is limited. Skinheads are merely low level methhead punks, with few having survived that epidemic. The "poor" white supremacists are almost all learning, thanks to DNA searches, they are not pure white. Nazi racial superiority had little to do with white supremacy, it was about Aryan supremacy as a political excuse for killing anyone who wasn't determined to be pure Aryan. Can you say "Phrenology?" In essence Hitler should have followed his own philosophy and killed himself long before he did.

Tattooing a swastika on your head doesn't make one a nazi, just stupid. Real Nazis didn't go for tattoos very much, blood types on their arms, not much else, and no swastikas. An occasional iron cross, a blood dagger on the lower leg, that's it. And women were defiled for the master race program if they had tattoos. German Nazis would have laughed at skinheads, and likely at American white supremacists as well.
 
I don't believe you really have any knowledge of the Nazis.

And I don't believe you have any working knowledge of Ukraine beyond Kiselyev's Vesti Nedeli programmy na kanale-1

Educate yourself a bit...

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Professor Timothy Snyder
Basic Books | 2012 | 560 pp
 
And while you're at it...

American Nazi Party
Leader: George Lincoln Rockwell (1959–67)
Matt Koehl: (1967–2014)
Rocky Suhayda: (2014–present)
Founder: George Lincoln Rockwell
Founded: 1959; 59 years ago (as World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists)
Ideology: Neo-Nazism
Neo-fascism
White nationalism
Antisemitism

Political position: Far-right
International affiliation: World Union of National Socialists
Party Flag
125px-Flag_of_the_American_Nazi_Party.svg.png
Wikipedia - American Nazi Party
 
And I don't believe you have any working knowledge of Ukraine beyond Kiselyev's Vesti Nedeli programmy na kanale-1

Educate yourself a bit...

Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin by Professor Timothy Snyder
Basic Books | 2012 | 560 pp

I don't need repeats of old propaganda on my reading list.
глупая ложь

Rockwell is dead. Suhayda is half Thai. They both hated skinheads, and both disavowed white supremacists like the Aryan Brotherhood.
 
Not only that, the North Vietnamese didn't invade the south. It was a Civil War after kicking out the French colonialists.

The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.
 
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.

The South refused to participate in the 1956 election.
 
If true, you should know better. And you should also remember, Ukrainians welcomed and joined with the Nazis when they arrived.

What a cherry picking bull**** is that.

Yeah, after 20 years of the Soviets and their suffering, some Ukrainians hoped the Nazis would be better. Shocking, huh?
 
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.

The Convention created a TEMPORARY division (at first South Vietnam didn't agree to the split) The South did vote to remain apart, helped by a liquidation of any political opponents to the Southern government, that stifled popular support for Ho (he was seen as a hero to many Vietnamese). Saigon voted 133% to remain separate... :shock:

When tyrants we don't like do this we denounce the election, when tyrants we support do this we look the other way... :peace
 
The Geneva Convention in 1954 created a North Vietnam and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese wanted self determination. Ho Chi Minh did not like that and he invaded South Vietnam.

Lots of South Vietnamese didn't like it either. That's who the Viet Cong were.
 
You really believe the communist propaganda?

Which propaganda? Are you saying the VC came from the north? They just parachuted into the villages and were hidden and protected because, um because propaganda?
 
Which propaganda? Are you saying the VC came from the north? They just parachuted into the villages and were hidden and protected because, um because propaganda?

No, but the idea that southern villagers spontaneously formed guerilla armies to fight on behalf of Uncle Ho's revolutionaries is propaganda. If you were a rice farmer in Quang Nam Province (I Corps) for instance, you didn't really have a choice whether or not to join the VC. The local province chief (working for the NVA) would make sure of that.

The average rice farmer likely never even considered politics or resistance. He just wanted to plant his paddies, smoke his pipe, and live peacefully with his wife and kids.

All communist revolutions try to project the illusion of broad grass roots support for their objectives. It is all smoke and mirrors.
 
Back
Top Bottom