• axh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    It implies that when you are strong, people are afraid to attack you.

    • alykanas@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      16 hours ago

      And with the benefit of historical evidence , how’s that worked out ?

      • axh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        15 hours ago

        Are you referring to that time when allies asked Poland not to mobilise the army to avoid provoking Hitler, so Poland did not mobilise… And Hitler did not attack, instead they all smiled and danced together and 1939 is remembered as a year when diplomacy prevailed! /S

        Or the one when Ukraine handed over their nuclear weapons to Russia and in exchange Russia agreed to never attack them

        Or to Switzerland that is neutral in every conflict. Has only 9 million citizens but 100 000 soldiers in active duty, 50 000 in reserve and more than half million civilians with army training. They also had explosives under every bridge, and a lot of weapon stashes all over the country, just in case.

        • alykanas@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          12 hours ago

          In the first case, it’s easy to see with hindsight that Hitler should not have appeared nor trusted . But context is important: Europe had lost 20 million people in WW1. It is entirely understandable that they should pursue peace and not war.

          In the second, there are two sides to an agreement, and Ukraine did not honour its undertakings to Russia.

          Switzerland obviously has no treaties of mutual defence, they are not in nato, nor in the EU, so run a much larger army that countries that have them.