Sign up for a free recipe e-book →

Clarissa's Blog

Winners and Losers of War

Published by

Clarissa

on

Yarvin also says that “most wars are started by the loser, and caused by the winner.”

In what concerns WWII—the war I’m sure he had in mind when writing the line—it’s clearly true. Hitler, the loser, started it. Stalin, the winner, did everything to bring Hitler to power and then make him attack.

For the Spanish civil war, it’s the other way round. Franco, the winner started the war but Republicans, the losers, made the war inevitable with their overreach.

The US civil war was started by the Confederacy, wasn’t it? But goaded into it by the Yanks? I might be completely off here because my knowledge of that conflict is based mostly on Gone With the Wind.

Who knows military history? What other wars can we apply this to and see if it works?

17 responses to “Winners and Losers of War”

  1. ShadowsCollide Avatar
    ShadowsCollide

    The Confederacy started the Civil War after they fired on Fort Sumter, a Union-held fort in Charleston, South Carolina.

    Like

    Reply
  2. ShadowsCollide Avatar
    ShadowsCollide

    There was a lot of tension between the North and the South in the years prior to the Civil War, due to slavery, tariffs, and different economic issues. The North was mostly industrial with lots of factories and railroads while the South was more agrarian with cotton and other agricultural products being the main industries. Slavery was illegal in the north and many Northerners were opposed to it while Southerners defended it. This is the short version, I have a BA in history and I’ve seen Ken Burns’s Civil War documentary and read Shelby Foote’s three volume set

    Like

    Reply
  3. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Confederacy unquestionably started the Civil War by firing the first shot. But as far as “caused”, I really don’t thing that can be cleanly ascribed to one side or the other. They were on a collision course. Even if the Union had just shrugged and said “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out” when the South seceded, that would likely only have delayed the inevitable by a few years, since it didn’t settle the key conflict over whether slavery could be expanded to new territories.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Avatar
      Anonymous

      The above comment is from the commenter formerly known as AcademicLurker.

      Like

      Reply
  4. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Counter points inbound.

    • – W

    Like

    Reply
  5. Avatar
    Anonymous

    Starting with WWII. The cause behind WWII didn’t exactly stem from a single source, but if one needed to consolidate it, a sizable chunk of the blame could be placed on 3 sources at 3 different points in time.

    First the French Government at the end of WWI. Those miserable B…ards cut Germany into pieces and scattered it to the winds. They demanded the debt for the entire war be placed on Germany’s shoulders. They installed the Wiemar Government which was a massive disaster beyond anything anyone had ever seen. They disarmed Germany and essentially told them that they were not allowed to defend themselves against the communist uprisings that kept popping up (see the disaster of the Wiemar Government.) Lastly after all this was done, they had the spite to take the Reinland, basically they occupied it and said what are you going to do about it. Even while demanding Germany still make the insane debt payments. Please note the French demanded this even as the Great Depression was on, and after they occupied the Reinland which was Germany’s industrial heartland.

    When the Nazi party kicked off, the German people hated the French with a passion. The French Government had gone out of their way to punish the Germans, and the Wiemar government was basically sitting there letting them do it.

    The second source came about before the Second World War kicked off, and actually signed the paper starting it. Churchill even before his war party took power, was doing everything in his power to start a war with Germany. Even back when Hitler was trying to reclaim the lost German lands from Czechoslovakia, Churchill was pressing for war with Germany.

    When Poland refused to surrender the German territory they had taken after the end of WWI. There were reports of German citizens being oppressed and killed in those regions. That part was never sufficiently proven or dis-proven to me. The “historians” say that this was a false flag, but then they never actually provide proof about that other than Nazi’s bad. So I take it with a grain of salt. I can say however like the other regions, Hitler demanded they return the German lands and German citizens first and Poland outright refused.

    Either way when the Germans and Russians finished taking Poland, Britain declared war against Germany stating their Guarantee of Poland as the Casus Bella for declaring war against Germany.

    Note that point, it is extremely important. The Brits guaranteed the independence of Poland from anyone who would attack them. So why then did Churchill not declare war on the Soviets? They attacked too, hell they held half of Poland. Even later in the Nuremberg Trials, the German High Command was condemned for the Katyn Massacre. A law was actually passed in several European countries stating that if you stated this was not the case you could be tossed in jail. As it turned out when the Soviet Union collapsed, their papers were released and it was determined they had not only been the ones to do the massacre, but they had stood in court stating the German High Command had done so.

    Something never mentioned in the history books in America, is that Hitler tried on multiple occasions to sue for peace with the Brits. One of the first, right after war was declared by Churchill was to offer allowing Poland remaining a sovereign nation, just without the lands taken from Germany at the end of WWI. He tried again after France fell. Going so far as to offer German troops to defend Britain and British colonies against anyone up to and including the Italians, the Japanese, and the Soviets.

    Churchill was a warmonger. He refused the offers again, and again, and again. Hell Hitler even went so far as to have his air-force drop leaflets translated into English onto the cities in England, explaining his offer. Churchill had the leaflets rounded up and destroyed.

    The last reason the war spread so much was Stalin. People say Hitler was a warmonger who wanted to take over the World. Funnily enough, the only wars he stated with a single exception were to take back German lands and German people after his requests and demands to have them returned were thrown back in his face. Also as a side note, this was one of his promises when he was running for office, the return of German lands and German people to Germany.

    He is however guilty of invading the Netherlands and Belgian. They were neutral at the time, and didn’t have a naval invasion force without a declaration of war heading their way from Britain like Norway did. I do understand his reasoning though. In WWI both of them sided with the Brits and French and would likely have in this one too. Even if they hadn’t chosen a side just yet.

    Stalin’s ambassador Molotov was quite open in his talks with Ribbentrop about Stalins plan’s to take Eastern Europe, from Finland all the way down to Bulgaria.

    Something critics like to say is that Hitler was foolish for starting a 2nd front. I would like to put this to rest. If Hitler had not launched his attack, the Soviet forces would have overrun Eastern Europe, and Germany would be left fighting a defensive war all up and down Eastern Europe against a prepared army while scrambling to set up defensive positions.

    Stalin’s forces were massing at the borders when Hitler launched his attack. Look at the captured and killed list and what equipment the soviets had on hand. That was not a border force, nor a defense force. There is a major difference in both the equipment used, and the infrastructure put up for Offensive Operations and Defensive Operations, and the Soviets were readying for a massive invasion.

    Was Hitler innocent of everything no, most certainly not, but history has done him a great disservice in its painting of him. Propaganda is supposed to be left in the past once a war is over and facts examined. In this case it was not only not dropped, but made worse for decades.

    • – W

    Like

    Reply
    1. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “Hitler ….history has done him a great disservice”

      Poor little fella….

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        The thing was it really did. Oh I don’t particularly care if you despise him or not, but what I do care about it things being taught truthfully. And if you quite literally only teach one side and you whitewash it at that. Well yea historians have done him a great disservice. Let him stand or fall, but let him stand or fall under his own actions, and historians have not done this at all, rather the opposite in fact.

        Take the Russian campaign for instance. According to historians he was a nut who split his army up, refused to allow them to retreat and got huge numbers of Germans killed.

        None of that is factual, but that is what you see on the history channel, that is what is taught in schools, and that is what is in the history books.

        He ordered his high command to take the whole army south and take the oil fields and the lands providing the soviets the resources for their war machines. They said yes sir, and then less than a day later when Hitler had come down with something and was stuck in bed (His own doctor’s diary confirms this.) They ignored his orders, and ordered the army split into 3 groups to attack Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad at the same time. They deliberately ignored his orders and got the German army in the mess it was in. But according to history their actions were Hitler’s despite him telling them specifically not to do this.

        Fast forward, the 6th Army is stuck and winter has arrived. Hitler ordered them not to retreat after his high command tried to do so. This is correct, however historians leave out the next bit. When Hitler told them that he specifically asked the general in question the following. Retreat to where. Where will you stop? 15 miles back, 100, the border, perhaps Berlin itself. And what of the heavy equipment that you will have to abandon. Is there more waiting where you want to retreat to? How will you fight without it?

        None of this was mentioned. It certainly paints that response in a new light does it not. If they stayed it was possible to get more supplies shipped in, and they might survive, but if they retreated where precisely would they go? The general had no answer because he hadn’t even considered that.

        This was just one example. Like I said I don’t particularly care if you like or hate Hitler. But I do care that his is not allowed to stand or fall on his own actions. I do care that history is being written from a single side, and I care quite a bit, because it is being used to effect many things today.

        Oh you can’t believe in your country because the Nazis did and you don’t want to end up like Hitler. Oh the right is bad because of Hitler so your only allowed to vote for leftism. Oh we have to support foreigners because the Nazis put the German people first. This is why it is important to call out historians not doing their job properly.

        • – W

        Like

        Reply
    2. cliff arroyo Avatar
      cliff arroyo

      “As it turned out when the Soviet Union collapsed … it was determined they had not only been the ones to do the massacre”

      This was known by everyone in Poland. Literally, everyone from 1944-1989 until the records were ‘discovered’ knew that the Soviets were responsible. So…

      Interestingly, putins’ russia may be trying to walk the ‘discovery’ back by ‘discovering’ new documents…. I don’t follow russian media but I’ve seen a reference or two by russians in English.

      What’s the deal with the radio station? russians who officially blame Poland for WWII have some story about a radio station… maybe in Silesia… what’s up with that?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Avatar
        Anonymous

        According to the official story, the Germans attacked after a German radio station was attacked. Like I said no idea if it was a false flag or if it actually happened, but the Germans attacked shortly after that event was said to have taken place. If it did happen it was likely that it was used as a causa bella, but again no one seems to know, and current historians simply state it was a false flag that allowed Hitler to begin the invasion.

        I tend to believe you in that the Poles knew about the massacre. The problem is no one else did. It was assigned to the Nazis at the Nuremberg Trial, and it was made illegal to even mention that it might not have been them who did it.

        No idea what Putin is doing with it. I think those documents were released sometime after the Soviet Union fell, so call it early to mid 90s?

        • – W

        Like

        Reply
    3. oldcowboy3 Avatar
      oldcowboy3

      Hmmm, I believe we had this song and dance before. Churchill was not a warmonger. He did not think much of Germans, but that is a widespread assessment of those that fought in WW1. After being gassed, most Canadians thought the same. As for Churchill’s refuse to make peace with Hitler, why would anybody trust him when he reneged on every agreement the liar ever signed? So give it a rest, Churchill was a hero holding up Western Civilization even as Europe fell.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. Clarissa Avatar
        Clarissa

        Absolutely, Churchill was a hero and a glory of the Western civilization. I don’t understand this current fad of hating Churchill. It’s very woke behavior.

        Like

        Reply
        1. cliff arroyo Avatar
          cliff arroyo

          “Churchill was a hero and a glory of the Western civilization”

          What were/are the soviet/russian ideas about Churchill… some of the ‘he was a warmonger’ seems along the lines of pro-russian narratives I’ve read.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
          1. Clarissa Avatar
            Clarissa

            The official narrative was that he was a weak, pathetic drunk.

            I’m fascinated by how there’s a large segment of the right that laps up every leftist idea in existence. The hatred of Churchill, the hatred of the Western civilization are very left-wing, hello.

            At least the left invents its own crap.

            Like

            Reply
  6. Avatar
    Anonymous

    On the Spanish Civil War, I will freely state I don’t know as much as I do other wars, however this one to me was particularly horrifying. The names were also wrong, so lets discuss.

    First thing you need to understand is the names. This was quite clever of the Soviets. The so called Republican party was nothing of the sort, but it sounded like they were in foreign newspapers. After all when you hear something like. (And the Republican forces in Madrid are holding back the Fascist forces.) You likely think ok, the fascist are trying to take Spain and the Republicans are well republicans trying to hold onto their republic. When in reality it was nothing of the sort.

    The so called republicans murdered their way through anyone who opposed them. They killed politictians, military officers, police officers, priests and nuns. They went so far as to destroy the churches, and drag out the dead bodies who were entombed within. I have the unfortunate displeasure to see the pictures on that. Something I never wish to see again. If you opposed them you vanished.

    I do not recalled who fired the first shots, but the Republicans were an absolute cancer upon Spain. If they had been allowed to continue well I don’t particularly care to think about the results.

    There were numerous small factions in the fighting, and two other large factions that opposed them. You had the actual Fascist party I believe they were called the Blackshirts, and surprisingly they didn’t actually have all that much support. Then you had Franco who was an army general who’s forces were in Morocco at the time when the war kicked off.

    The thing about this war was none of the sides had enough weapons, and they were all being funded by foreign powers. The Republicans by the Soviets, the French, the British, and the Americans. (Remember, they are Republicans, not communists after all, its in the name isn’t it.) Franco and the Blackshirts were being supplied by Italy and Germany. Something else of this point to remember. Italy and Germany were not exactly friends at the moment, and Mussolini liked his little adventures. He like Churchill was a war monger, and Hitler decided to bleed him. So Hitler send just enough old weapons to the Republicans to keep the war going as it was draining Italy of manpower and equipment. Granted the communists were dying in large numbers, but that was fine too as it bled both the Italians and the Communists, so a win win for everyone but Spain itself.

    Going on about the equipment, Franco was trapped overseas. Keep in mind, they didn’t have an airforce. No one really did at this point. It wasn’t till Hitler sent over some Junkas to fly Franco’s forces back to Spain Proper were they even able to take part.

    Again the Spanish civil war isn’t something I am greatly familiar with, but what I do know is that even amongst civil wars it was quite a nasty one. To the point when it was over Franco was in charge and he more or less sat out WWII.

    So to go back to the first question Franco and sanity won in the end, but in my opinion the actually war was started even before the first shot by the Republicans.

    • – W

    Like

    Reply
  7. Avatar
    Anonymous

    The US Civil War. First off the name is incorrect. This is the name according to the history books, but they tend to have bias about things. The two more accurate names are The War of Northern Aggression and Mr. Lincoln’s War. As for it to be a civil war, both sides need to be fighting for control over a nation. This was not the case as the Confederacy used the clause written within every state of the Union at the time’s declaration and separated from the Union forming our own country of the Confederated Sates of America.

    Note : I am a Southerner so I freely admit there will likely be some bias in my statements. I promise to try my best not to call any Yankee’s heros absolute monsters more than once though. Except for Sherman. He can and likely is burning in hell.

    So on this I would like to take everyone back to before things kicked off once more, as wars don’t just randomly start one day. They tend to build up and then a match is lit spreading conflict and hatred.

    The first thing you need to understand is that despite everything the media and history books have done to alter the reasons for war. The reason was not and never was slavery. It was not on the South’s side, nor was in on the North’s side. It is however an easy answer that paints the south in a bad light which is why it is used so often.

    It has been many, many years since I did any research on this topic, so I am not including it as I am at work at the moment and can’t go home and try to dig up all my notes from decades ago. I do remember two things that I will offer. In the early 1860s before the South succeeded from the Union, the Virginia commonwealth met to discuss ending slavery in Virginia. What they found was that to buy all slaves in Virginia, and repatriate them to Africa would completely bankrupt the state. Unlike today, at the time states were required to keep a budget and maintain reserves. This would eliminate both, and they found that more slaves would be bought in either from other states, or purchased from the Rode Island ships that sailed to Africa to purchase slaves. They were also told the Federal government would not help them in any way.

    The reason I bring this up, was to point out slavery was in fact on its way out at the time. When a government gets to the point where its discussing ways to reduce something that generally signals its at the end of its run.

    The second bit was something called the Corwin Amendment. This was offered by the federal government as a last ditch peace branch to the southern States in 1861. It more or less stated that slavery would be protected from federal interference. Basically it would enshrine slavery into federal law. Not a single southern state voted in favor.

    Moving forward a bit. Lincoln was elected. He was elected by the North as the Southern States objected and refused to even put him on the ballot. Once he was elected, the Southern States left the union and ratified our own nation, the Confederate States of America.

    Now the thing was despite what you might think, a sizeable portion of the taxes used by the federal government actually came from the Southern States, and they certainly were not used down here by the feds.

    Lincoln could have simply let the South leave. It was done peacefully and without any shots fired, using promises written into the the founding documents. He refused. Now we get to where history starts pulling wool over people’s eyes.

    The first shots of the war were confederate artillery on Ft. Sumter. Its a neat little fort, but I’d like to ask the audience a question. Where is the fort located? Was it up near New York? Was it maybe in California? How about Ohio?

    Oh right, Fort Sumter was on a small island inside the Harbor of Charleston South Carolina. Where its guns were aimed at the port city it was originally built to defend. Strangely enough the multiple requests sent to Mr. Lincoln to remove his forces from the southern harbor were ignored. In fact Mr. Lincoln sent ships with more troops, supplies, and weapons to reinforce said fort. But it gets worse. You see Mr. Lincoln decided in his infinite wisdom, that despite the Southern States leaving, and you know forming a new nation. That he was still allowed to tax the southern states. So he continued to try to collect taxes from another nation.

    Eventually after the reinforcements were dispatched it was decided that this would not be allowed to stand and the fort was called upon to surrender and be sent back to the North. The commander refused. (I believe, but I do not recall, that he had standing orders from Mr. Lincoln not to surrender no matter what.)

    An ultimatum was issued, and once it was refused, the cannons started firing.

    Once the war stated Maryland looked to join the South. They were fed up and looking to leave. Mr. Lincoln sent federal troops to arrest and throw in jail those running the newspapers, the mayors, the governor, and anyone who wasn’t pleased with his actions. He suspended Hapius Corpus and declared Martial law.

    I’ll cut the rest short as I really do need to get back to work, but in this case. The South might have fired the first shots, but Mr. Lincoln was the one who ultimately caused the war. He refused to remove his forces, he refused to stop attempting to tax states of another nation. He did a lot more than that, but in the end, the North had the manpower and the industry and the South quite literally ran out of bullets.

    Oh the manpower thing was kind of interesting. So basically if you were immigrating to America at the time, your port of entry was generally in the North. Mr. Lincoln stationed troops on those ports and basically took any men coming in and automatically put them in the Union army, effectively continuously reinforcing his forces. Kept in mind he seized control of the media of the day, so those coming from other nations had no idea this would happen to them.

    If you ever wonder why North Georgia has an area that is basically a miniature Germany in the South, that is why. It was Germans conscripted into the Union forces that were in the south when it ended and decided to stick around.

    • – W

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. oldcowboy3 Avatar
      oldcowboy3

      While the majority of the troops fighting the American Civil War on either side did not consider slavery to be a major factor, the political leaders of the Confederacy most certainly did.

      https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession

      This is not surprising very few Confederate soldiers owned slaves, while some on the Union side, including U S. Grant, did. Further, some states in the Union including Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland were slave holding.

      Further, while the South had difficulty maintaining sufficient ammunition as in gunpowder, they essentially ran out of soldiers with some estimates as high as 25% killed and another 25% wounded.

      Like

      Reply

Leave a comment

A conservative literary critic and college professor

Recent posts