Asklemmy

43943 readers

613 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

131

How do you make someone understand that being drafted by force and ordered to invade another country is not a good thing? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 3 months ago by index@sh.itjust.works to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

233 comments fedilink hide all child comments

As title, if you have post or link any useful resource you have

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is every alternative preferable to war? For example, should Ukraine have agreed to become part of Russia to avoid war?

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Quite a few nations capitulated against the Nazis within days or even without a fight to avoid war. It saved a lot of lives. Does that make it the right choice? Who is to say...

What's for sure is that Boris shouldn't have vetoed the peace agreement in 2022.

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I didn't think it saved lives, since it empowered the Nazis to kill more people. So I say no it wasn't the right choice.

[–] SLfgb@feddit.nl 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Look it's hard to say if it saved lives in the overall ww2 tally, but surrender to save lives was the rationale of the Generals eg in The Netherlands. They looked at what the Luftwaffe had done to Rotterdam, looked at what weapons they had themselves, considered the prospect of what was going to happen to Utrecht next, and decided that further resistance was futile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II#German_occupation

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 months ago

Sorry, I don't mean to say that it killed more people in every case. I agree there are could be cases where the outcome was certain, and maintaining strength for gorilla resistance and saving population centers was likely prudent.

I was primarily referring to appeasement, where countries in Europe, mostly England, gave the Nazis land to avoid war.