this post was submitted on 27 May 2024
864 points (94.5% liked)
Political Memes
5428 readers
2074 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum.
Ah yes, the famous quote from fourth century Rome. How did that work out for them? I seem to remember a continuous series of wars leading to the utter collapse of western Rome before the end of that century. It also inspired the name of the Parabellum pistol (AKA Lugar) manufactured in Germany for both worlds wars. The quote doesn't have the best track record.
I prefer si vis pacem para pacem.
One can find the application to this quote pretty much everywhere, everywhen, even in small personal situations, so once it spread it stuck and outlived the Rome itself because it does correspond to what we sometimes think and do. In soviet times (another dead empire) there were a couple of the same-meaning proverbs, like 'alarmed, thus got armed (in time)' I used when I prepared for things like exams, job interviews, long camping trips and stuff, and I'm pretty sure your culture has them too.
I believe that Einstein was very optimistic and said that too early, or dreamed of the future when wars over beliefs, ego or profits aren't a usual occurence. But we as humanity haven't arrived there yet. One of the ways this can occur is if we would see the war not worth it for a long time, to get used to it, and Europe mostly got this by now within itself, but not against external threats. As, so it happens, there are still rogue actors who can start their shitty crusade on their border. And if we won't be so europocentric, the Middle East and Africa and Asia has a lot of war axes dug out for their peers, there are hot and cold conflicts going on even if they aren't covered in what news sources we can read.
Star Trek: TNG's first season has a little mention of how we humans came here, through unimaginable wars and atrocities, before we aknowledged that our ways are wrong. I hope, we would be better and won't see WW3 (or WW4 with sticks and stones as Albert said) play out before we reach something akin to their fantastic future. We may need to come to the parity and agree to tone it all down, and have a century of peace, before we even get into the mentality characters have in this show.
Wars they were utterly unprepared for, yes.
Cool. You're prepared for peace. You get into a dispute with your neighbor. Your neighbor is prepared for war. How does this end?
Rome had the largest army ever assembled at the time. They did more military preparation than any nation in Europe. They had 56 legions of professional soldiers. How many more do you think they would have needed to be considered prepared?
I've never had an issue with my neighbors that could be solved with war. Once I lived next to a guy who was pretty militant, but we got along alright. I hired his son to help mow my lawn. Maybe I'm just not good at getting into disputes.
In a geopolitical sense, it seems to be more about alliances than independent preparation. Nations can prepare for war and still get steamrolled, or prepare for peace and put up a solid resistance. I think a constant paranoia of war is more likely to do harm than conjure safety.
Jesus. If you're not informed about the state of the Late Empire, don't use it as a point of comparison.
Or maybe you live in a society with a massive apparatus for the resolution of conflicts that relies on the threat of force in case of non-cooperation?
No, that's silly.
What the fuck do you think an alliance is if not preparing for war
I can't think of many. Got any examples?
Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance. They had spent the decade prior, focusing on disarmament and the League of Nations. The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet. For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.
Then what was the point of your hypothetical?
Are you fucking kidding me
Chamberlain's entire deal was that he was buying time for Britain to rearm. On top of that, Britain, at the outset of the war, had one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the earth, on account of having massive colonial holdings that needed to be butchered from time to time to 'keep them in line'.
... we had spent the past several years rebuilding our military, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to knock out one of the most powerful navies in the world.
Sorry, what I meant was "One of the most powerful navies in the world is not a sign of being prepared for war; quite the opposite"
Ukraine was unprepared in 2014, when, you know, the Russian military took Crimea bloodlessly and very bloodily took the Donbass. Ever since they've been pouring money into the military, especially considering the active phase of the War in the Donbass for the past fucking decade. The military budget almost tripled since 2014 to 2021. And since the start of the 2022 phase of the war, countries which also have prepared for war were instrumental in Ukraine's defense, providing much of that preparatory material; while many European countries which had been less prepared for war have struggled to provide what Ukraine needs.
Try again.
I had meant geopolitical neighbors, but actual neighbors works as well - you are only able to be free of the threat of violence as a means of conflict resolution because someone (the state in this case) threatens it in your place
Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war, but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor, and Chamberlain's Britain was prepared for Hitler? Hmm. How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?
Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won't go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla's army away was won by barbarian allies.
No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.
Chamberlain's Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain's stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.
Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.
There seems to be a disconnect in how we're talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.
My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.
On the surface it seems like we're saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it's that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.
By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.
Does that make sense from your perspective?
Do you understand how hypotheticals work?
Hypothetically, I'm your neighbor. I feel like killing you. I have a gun. I have no sense of morality. What stops me?
My point is that I've lived next to people preparing for war, and it was never an issue. I don't see why people can't coexist.
My evasion, guile, and misdirection.
What's your response to the hypothetical? Shoot first?
K now you run away, cool, I can't find you but I get to keep all your stuff and your house. You die from exposure. Great plan.
My answer is that the sanctioned violence of the state provides a check on the violence of individuals. Now we all live in a relatively peaceful society.
That doesn't answer the hypothetical. Are you saying you'd call the cops? What do you do when the killer is coming for you with their gun?
Call the cops, yes. Defend myself if necessary inasmuch as the law allows, because I agreed to be bound by the law. If I live in a rural area and the cops are far away, using violence to defend myself may be the only option.
But whether it's by me or the state, my violent neighbor will be stopped by a greater amount of violence.
You need to learn how it collapsed and see how your plan would not have changed that.
*oops now there's a cold war and thousands of nukes*
Like come on, if there's one person who didn't like to make things simple it was Einstein. The guy was a fan of the Soviet Union, which was established through a revolution. This is just a catchy one-liner about pointless wars and militarism, not a deep and detailed political analysis.
Soviet Union, which was established on anti-war. WW1, anyone remembers that?
You can discredit Einstein as much as you like.
That doesn't change a thing about the truth of the quote.