WWI

[Black Dog]

So the argument immediately shift to WW2.

I read a column in the Sun yesterday claiming that out of the all parties involved Canada could take something tangibly positive out of WW1 as they could find a national identity in their military victories in WW1. Vimy Ridge, Pachendale etc.

Pedantry alert: national identity isn't really anything tangible. Also seems like a pretty poor consolation prize given the price paid.

[PIK]

Wars destroy people and things; wars are not good for business.

====

Before 1914, many European cities were multicultural and multilingual. That is, these cities had diverse communities of people who did not share the same language and were frequently unilingual. It was a civilized world where people got along.

By 1950, that world was gone. Because of ethnic cleansing and so-called national self-determination, once multilingual, multicultural European cities had become unicultural, unilingual.

This post-1950 Europe is not sustainable. The world of pre-1914 Europe is natural and inevitable.

Or multicultural and multilingual did not work.

[Moonbox]

But the war(s) were exactly why the extra R&D and infrastructure spending happened, including post war re-building. There is no way to separate the two into what "might have happened" otherwise.

You're right, but these could have happened and to better effect without the war if voters and politicians were more farsighted and less partisan. That the wars acted as catalysts for the public will and political unity necessary to get these projects done is undeniable. The relationship between war and economic growth, however, is more correlational than causal.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Moonbox

[Boges]

You're right, but these could have happened and to better effect without the war if voters and politicians were more farsighted and less partisan. That the wars acted as catalysts for the public will and political unity necessary to get these projects done is undeniable. The relationship between war and economic growth, however, is more correlational than causal.

Sort of like how Olympics and Sporting events are the only way to actually get governments to improve large infrastructure projects.

[bush_cheney2004]

You're right, but these could have happened and to better effect without the war if voters and politicians were more farsighted and less partisan. That the wars acted as catalysts for the public will and political unity necessary to get these projects done is undeniable. The relationship between war and economic growth, however, is more correlational than causal.

Fair enough for economic growth, but not invention and innovation, which are accelerated out of necessity from concepts to applied physics for war making and defense.

[Wilber]

Pedantry alert: national identity isn't really anything tangible. Also seems like a pretty poor consolation prize given the price paid.

Then living in one country should be the same as living in any other.

[Moonbox]

Fair enough for economic growth, but not invention and innovation, which are accelerated out of necessity from concepts to applied physics for war making and defense.

I'll agree with that, although most of these innovations were already in the works before the war and merely focused on and accelerated. Whether 6-10 years of massive scale death and destruction was worth 10-15 years of accelerated scientific progress is the subject of plenty of academic papers.

The idea to follow up on is the make a distinction between WW1/WW2 and the wars of today. On one hand, you had total-war and virtually full-scale economic mobilization in a war among relative equals (technologically speaking at least), and on the other hand you have superpowers and their allies playing wack-a-mole against third-rate armies. The wars of yesteryear demonstrated the necessity of accelerated research and design. The wars of today prove that NATO is already decades ahead of most of its enemies and will be for some time.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Moonbox

[Boges]

I'll agree with that, although most of these innovations were already in the works before the war and merely focused on and accelerated. Whether 6-10 years of massive scale death and destruction was worth 10-15 years of accelerated scientific progress is the subject of plenty of academic papers.

The idea to follow up on is the make a distinction between WW1/WW2 and the wars of today. On one hand, you had total-war and virtually full-scale economic mobilization in a war among relative equals (technologically speaking at least), and on the other hand you have superpowers and their allies playing wack-a-mole against third-rate armies. The wars of yesteryear demonstrated the necessity of accelerated research and design. The wars of today prove that NATO is already decades ahead of most of its enemies and will be for some time.

In what Universe would a government greenlight the resources spent on the Manhattan Project in peace time?

Even getting to the Moon was done as a competition with the Soviets and not done just cuz.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Boges

[Black Dog]

Then living in one country should be the same as living in any other.

On the list of things that makes Canada different from Congo, national identity is far, far down the list.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Black Dog

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The wars of yesteryear demonstrated the necessity of accelerated research and design. The wars of today prove that NATO is already decades ahead of most of its enemies and will be for some time.

OK...but the U.S. and other nations learned that to keep such an edge, there must be continued investment in pure R&D (e.g. ARPANET), which results in more technological spinoffs (like this TCP/IP protocol). This funding would not be so forthcoming without the "small" wars and perceived threats, real or imagined.

[eyeball]

Meaning the whole contraption relies on a continued investment in the dictatorial bastards required to keep the small wars and perceived threats coming. Sweet, Machiavellian and despicable as all get go, but sweet if you're in the game.

Edited August 6, 2014 by eyeball

[Wilber]

On the list of things that makes Canada different from Congo, national identity is far, far down the list.

All kinds of things make up a national identity, not just per capita income.

[Black Dog]

All kinds of things make up a national identity, not just per capita income.

Such as?

[bush_cheney2004]

Meaning the whole contraption relies on a continued investment in the dictatorial bastards required to keep the small wars and perceived threats coming. Sweet, Machiavellian and despicable as all get go, but sweet if you're in the game.

Works for me....one of the reasons for much lower R&D investment in Canada...you gotta play the game to win.

[Wilber]

Such as?

Think about it. Do you think all developed countries have the same national identity? Wars have a lot to do with forming the national identities of many, if not most countries. For the US it was their revolution and civil war. For us, 1812 made us realize we are not, nor would be American, WW1 that we were no longer part of Britain and WW2 that we were truly independent, fully fledged allies with an independent foreign policy.

[Army Guy]

Following Confederation, the Dominion of Canada itself also remained part of the British Empire and was constitutionally subject to imperial control until the enactment of the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The Statute of Westminster gave the Dominion legislative sovereignty on all matters except with regards to the constitutional laws of Canada, which remained under the legal control of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Canada's final vestige of legal dependence on the United Kingdom was terminated in 1982 with the enactment of the Canada Act, which transferred control over the constitution over to the country

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_under_British_rule

Well sometimes Canadian history is hard to follow, Tech Britain looked after all our Legislative Sovereignty matters until 1931, well after WWI, although history does record WWI as the birth of our nation coming on to our own i think they said.....And we did not get back our rights in regards to Constitutional laws until "1982"

The Canadian Citizenship Act came into effect on 1 January 1947 under the government of Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King. The act established Canadian citizenship as a distinct category and allowed residents of Canada to obtain citizenship regardless of their country of origin.[1] Prior to 1947, individuals born in Canada and naturalized immigrants were classified as British subjects rather than Canadian citizens.[2]

In Fact the first Canadian citizen was not until 1947, before that we were considered British Subjects .....http://www.pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947

[Army Guy]

Such as?

Lacross

Hockey....

Poutine...

Meat pie..

All the maple products ....

Being to polite....

the word .....EH.....

CFL

skating...

hockey sticks....

broom ball

Snow ball fights....

out door Hockey rinks....

French and english stop signs,,,,

I'm sure their is lots more that can be called Canadian and are part of our national identity....

[BubberMiley]

Canadians aren't that polite. They just say sorry when they don't mean it.

[Guest]

Canadians aren't that polite. They just say sorry when they don't mean it.

I thought the following cartoons illustrated your comment very well. (<--- Warning point avoidance)

Edited August 6, 2014 by bcsapper

[jbg]

Hey, who won?

In hindsight no one won because it got followed by a much worse war in 20 years.

I have strong views on the subject of not prosecuting wars to the finish.

The civilized world has always tried to limit the bloodshed of war initially. During the Civil War, Union forces took no steps to occupy Virginia or North Carolina prior to their long-delayed secession from the Union. During World War II, much time was spent in both the European and Atlantic theatres on peripheral engagements with enemy troops, some at great cost of Allied life. In the Pacific theatre of WW II, how many Americans died at Guadalcanal, Midway, and Iwo Jima that could have been saved had the atom bomb been available for use earlier?

Both the Civil War and WW II ended when the victors became serious about fighting. General Sherman's "March to the Sea", which devastated large swaths of Georgia, convinced the remaining Confederates that their cause was hopelss. The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

For war to end, the ultimate victors must prosecute it to the maximum extent possible. I am not advocating attacking supermarkets and skyscrapers deliberately. Those kinds of attacks accomplish little. If fanatics seek war, they should be given what they ask for. In spades. Attempts to daintily avoid civilian casualties and negotiate prematurely lead only to prolonged and greater grief.

WW I was ended with an armistice. The result was the lack of a clear winner. Thus, the rapid resumption of rearmament and warfare. Lots of death, little accomplished. World not "safe for democracy."

[Boges]

WW I was ended with an armistice. The result was the lack of a clear winner. Thus, the rapid resumption of rearmament and warfare. Lots of death, little accomplished. World not "safe for democracy."

The armistice didn't have to lead to WW2. Humiliating Germany with the Treaty of Versailles was more of a contributing factor. Also the Western European powers had a ho hum attitude towards Hilter's arms buildup and land grabs. They clearly were violating the Treaty but they didn't care because they were recovering from the Depression. Interestingly we see a similar attitude from Europe in the face of Putin and Russia. I still see similarities in the two.

I'm no Civil War expert (Perhaps after I finish the Ken Burns series on Netflix ) But in the movie Lincoln didn't Abe entertain peace offers from the South?

[August1991]

Or multicultural and multilingual did not work.

Go walk in any forest in Canada. You will see at least 20 species of trees living aside one another: birches, pines, maples. (In the south, closer to the equator, forests have even more tree varieties.)

====

Let me make my point more clear: "National self-determination", "Nation-states", "Single-culture states", "single-species forests" are not sustainable concepts. A forest of a single species of pine is not sustainable. Why?

Trees grow, well, in various places. A maple tree is likely to invade a forest of pines.

Edited August 7, 2014 by August1991

[August1991]

You're right, but these could have happened and to better effect without the war if voters and politicians were more farsighted and less partisan.

Moonbox, I agree with you.

Too often some people think that wars "spur" a few to innovation - and then these people justify war since it creates, supposedly, original thinking among the few.

In fact, Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibnitz, Albert Einstein - to pick a few examples - didn't need a war to discover the Universe's hidden secrets.

====

More generally, Moonbox, you wonder about an existential question: why are there wars? Why did WWI occur?

Here's my answer: I can understand why you wonder why there's a war in Gaza now. {Hint: Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood, and Hamas are like the Hell's Angels. I happen to live near a Montreal police station, and I'm happy to pay my property taxes.}

Edited August 9, 2014 by August1991

[jbg]

I'm no Civil War expert (Perhaps after I finish the Ken Burns series on Netflix ) But in the movie Lincoln didn't Abe entertain peace offers from the South?

There were some that were "entertained" but none remotely close to being accepted. The only concessions were those given at Appomotax, which was to allow the officers to return home with a horse. In reality it was an unconditional surrender.

[Moonbox]

OK...but the U.S. and other nations learned that to keep such an edge, there must be continued investment in pure R&D (e.g. ARPANET), which results in more technological spinoffs (like this TCP/IP protocol). This funding would not be so forthcoming without the "small" wars and perceived threats, real or imagined.

The Iraq war cost $2 trillion, and after veterans' benefits are paid, it will end up costing significantly more. The conflict didn't accelerate R&D investment by +$2 trillion.

The Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, in my view, for the first time convinced the German and Japanese people, respectively, that their "leadership" was taking them one place; to the grave.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the finishing blows that people like to make them out to be. The Japanese leadership had accepted long before that they were defeated and had no chance to negotiate anything but an unconditional surrender with the US. They'd hoped that the Soviets would help mediate more acceptable terms, but the Soviet invasion of Manchuria made it clear that they had no other options.

Dresden was an even a worse example. This had virtually no impact on the overall war effort and expedited nothing. The Soviets were already across the Vistula (the last real obstacle on the way to Berlin) by the time the first Dresden bombings occurred and were on the outskirts of Berlin by the time the last Dresden bombings happened. Clearly these attacks didn't speed up the surrender as it wasn't until the Reds were deep in Berlin and Hitler had killed himself that the Germans surrendered. Dresden did nothing but flatten a city and kill 25,000 civilians.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Moonbox