Ask HN: Why didn't the world learn the lessons of WWII? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why didn't the world learn the lessons of WWII?

15 pointsdandanua24 comments

In 2022 the world has another dictator that uses mass lie, hatred, repressions, and superiority complex to justify killings of another nation. How could this happen again, after all the horrors of WWII?

View on HN

“The world” doesn’t learn lessons. People might. Almost no one alive remembers WWII. “The world” can’t always stop war or dictators

Human history is non-stop war, aggression, conflict, invasion. War is the not exceptional, nor are dictators, hatred, brutality.

This is the correct answer. There is no individual "the world" as a cohesive unit like you can point to "a tree" or "a person". OP is repeating a fallacy of some sort, the name of which I cannot recall.

A weak generalization?

Sounds like a pretty accurate representation of the human international politics, basically at every single point since recorded history has begun. This is not "the worst thing that has happened since 1945", it's standard operating procedure.

What is shocking to many people is that aggression has not started from their home turf, and that this time, it's not some apparently underdeveloped people somewhere in Africa or Asia or the Middle East or South America, but a place in the middle of Europe that's on the receiving end.

There has been wars non-stop since 1945. It's only a crisis when you're supporting the underdog. Israel has been doing the same thing as Russia for decades.

No wars, only special operations.

I can't tell if that's sarcasm, because that's what Putin said too.

Anyway, it's well documented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1945%E2%80%93198...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_1990%E2%80%93200...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars:_2003%E2%80%93pre...

To quote Wikipedia: Merriam-Webster defines war as "a state of opened and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations". Lexico defines war as "A state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country". Conflicts causing at least 1,000 deaths in one calendar year are considered wars by the Uppsala Conflict Data Program.

Unpopular opinion, but deserves consideration:

Because, much like the sister who teases you until you finally have to act, the US and NATO backed Russia into a corner, presenting an existential threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6mw9U62ZJU

If the West wins Ukraine, things will escalate, which could be far, far worse.

It might be that 2020 was the best year of this decade.

By constantly showing support for Ukraine to join NATO, and with Merkel gone, who was the one to counter such encouragement, the Ukraine dilemma unfolded.

Essentially Ukraine wants to join Europe for economic development which Russia cannot provide her with. However Russia does have the capacity to break Ukraine if it chooses to do so and demonstrated in this war. It requires the politicians of Ukraine to walk very delicate lines, a trait unfortunately missing.

> It requires the politicians of Ukraine to walk very delicate lines, a trait unfortunately missing.

Because God forbid requiring the politicians of Russia to progress beyond Stalin's methods and join the civilised world. Now there's "a trait unfortunately missing" for you.

The existential threat of a neighboring country not being dirt poor. This is what passes for an existential threat to Russia. You are absolutely correct.

If it loses it will also escalate. For the good and the bad, the world is a better place with a loser Russia than a winner.

Unpopular opinion, but whatever Putin's real targets are the Ukraine NATO membership is one of the things he not only could, but used as a pretense for this invasion.

Perhaps because people thought the relative peace since 1945 was the equilibrium state rather than the great exception to that state…. World wars were fought 1789-1815, 1914-1918 and 1937-1945. Significant revolutionary conflict in 1789, 1848, 1917-on and “minor” flare up’s in France from time to time. Germany fought its unification battles in 1866 and 1870. There was a bloodbath in the US 1861-1865. China and other colonial matters were “problems” for decades. There were lesser conflicts as well, such as US/Spain and Germany/Austria vs. Denmark. Others that I’m too lazy to look up.

Remembered one, the seven years war was actually a world war that lasted longer than seven years, with actions in n America, Europe and India. The US broke away, Frederick became Great, …

Because it can be politically very expensive to stand up to a dictator. If similar sanctions had been put on Russia in 2014 as was done now, there would have been a major political backlash from the resulting economic downturn. The Russian operation in 2014 was perceived with much less outrage than the outright attack two weeks ago, so major sanctions doubling fuel price would have been much more difficult to justify.

Even now the West moved initially fairly slowly, leaders gauging the public reaction (and the reaction of others) to the invasion.

Nationalism is still the dominant ideology, we still separate people physically even though goods and money has very few limits. The cause of world wars was the nationalist religion, and apparently it s still very influential, especially in poorer places where people don't feel they have Man other options to improve their position in life

It was very utopic to think there would not be another war of conquest ever again. Migh is right will be forever true.

The state of the world between 1945 and now wasn't exactly sunshine and rainbows either... During that period Stalin was still hell-bent on conquering the world and subjugated dozens of nations, Mao killed tens of millions of Chinese, the Khmers murdered around 25% of Cambodia's population, millions were killed in the Vietnam war etc.

You're describing Hitler. Not Putin. The situations are very different.

There is no hatred of a people in Putin (just fear of Nato).

There is some superiority complex sure. But in Putins case it's the superiority complex of "Ukraine is actually Russia", which is enormously different from the hate of the nazis.

History doesn't repeat itself perfectly. For Putin to say that Ukraine doesn't exist and ukrainians are actually Russians is as bad or worse than Hitler standing. Putin denies the right of an ethnicity to exist.

That's not true. Putin has repeatedly said that the main purpose of the military operation is military facilities on Ukrainian territory, but not people. If you don't believe me, watch the interviews, ask the Russians how they feel about the brotherly people. One in 20 people in Russia is a Ukrainian. No one belittles them on a national basis.

What a liar says doesn't matter, his acts counts more. But even lying, he said that Ukraine is Russia just a few days ago.

> There is no hatred of a people in Putin (just fear of Nato).

Clearly, you didn't watch Russian inner propaganda. And you don't know people in general. Hate is the main source of energy that fuels authoritarians in their crack on people who don't comply. Putin is just quite good in restraining emotions within himself, in public appearances. Still, there are videos of him when you can see the hate.

Because some people benefit from world wars. It happens that they were mostly powerful figures too.

You know, death could be very profitable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com