24
submitted 6 months ago by Habahnow@sh.itjust.works to c/usa@lemmy.ml

Interesting article that talks about the similarities between now and 1938, and the sort of lessons we can learn from history.

top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 6 months ago

So, WW3 soon?

[-] CableMonster@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago

Sweet, neo-con propaganda!

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This article advocates fighting Russia and not being a "coward", but Germany didn't have nuclear weapons in 38

[-] EleventhHour@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Neither did we (that’s an inclusive “we” since literally nobody had them)

But more to the point, Russia isn’t going to nuke Ukraine— the whole reason Putin wants it is for both its strategic value and for its abundant resources. Using even tactical nukes would wipe out that value. It might even be enough for the Russian people (or his fellow oligarchs) to overthrow him.

Not to mention that it would trigger WWIII— they’re at a stalemate with Ukraine. Just imagine what would happen if they had to do a big boy fight with the US.

Edit: and, after his recent meeting with Xi, I’m curious as to how China would respond. Maybe not so much in Putin’ favor as he believes.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 6 months ago

Just imagine what would happen if they had to do a big boy fight with the US.

Pretty sure that would be the end of our species

[-] Habahnow@sh.itjust.works -4 points 6 months ago

Your right we should let countries with nuclear weapons do what they want and hope they aren't malicious.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 3 points 6 months ago

That's not what I said.

[-] x4740N@lemm.ee -3 points 6 months ago

I feel like putins regime is going to collapse in a similar way to "communist" russia

[-] davel@lemmy.ml -4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Given Putin’s unrivalled record of broken promises

That’s rich.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

These all seem like very reputable sources. You can tell they're quality by how much time they spend attacking other news sources and by how strenuously they stress that "we're telling the truth" .

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago
[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works -3 points 6 months ago

Being "contrarian" is not the same as "being true."

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I don’t know why you persist in framing things as “contrarian.”
One could just as well say, “Being ‘conformist’ is not the same as ‘being true.’” Neither one is wrong, but neither is especially enlightening, either.

Edit to add: And BTW, the links above about the media are not the least bit controversial or “contrarian”. It’s bog-standard stuff taught in schools of marketing, public relations, political science, history, and journalism.

this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
24 points (87.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7320 readers
171 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS