The obvious critique is that the main difference between the war against the fascism and the war in Iraq is that the war with fascism effectively started only after Germany began to invade other countries. The other difference is that the war was waged for the most part by the countries that have been directly affected by the expansion of Germany.
the war with fascism effectively started only after Germany began to invade other countries
Well, so did the war with Iraq, didn't it? True, there was a long ceasefire.
the war was waged for the most part by the countries that have been directly affected by the expansion of Germany
The USA was an exception then (Germany did declare war on it, though). As well as Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth contries.
There also differences in the way the war was prosecuted (no 12-year hiatus, etc). But what the guy was talking about was his belief that this is another war against "fascism", in the broad sense. I think his perspective, whether one is to agree with it or not, is interesting.
Are you also considering WWI and WWII as the same war with a long ceasefire?
>The USA was an exception then (Germany did declare war on it, though). >As well as Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth contries.
USA entered the war after Pearl Harbor, and was engaged in fierce, if sporadic warfare with Japan. Granted, I should have said "Germany and/or its allies". Canada and Australia are not an issue - note that I said "for the most part".
And I disagree with him on whether this is a war against "fascism". I can name a large number of regimes that qualify, under a very similar definition.
Are you also considering WWI and WWII as the same war with a long ceasefire?
This is a good question. There are historians who prefer to look at it this way, but I do not have an opinion, not being an expert.
And I disagree with him on whether this is a war against "fascism". I can name a large number of regimes that qualify, under a very similar definition.
Well, the word fascism tends to be used so broadly that it loses its edge.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
The obvious critique is that the main difference between the war
against the fascism and the war in Iraq is that the war with
fascism effectively started only after Germany began to invade
other countries. The other difference is that the war was waged
for the most part by the countries that have been directly affected
by the expansion of Germany.
no subject
Well, so did the war with Iraq, didn't it? True, there was a long ceasefire.
the war was waged for the most part by the countries that have been directly affected by the expansion of Germany
The USA was an exception then (Germany did declare war on it, though). As well as Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth contries.
There also differences in the way the war was prosecuted (no 12-year hiatus, etc). But what the guy was talking about was his belief that this is another war against "fascism", in the broad sense. I think his perspective, whether one is to agree with it or not, is interesting.
no subject
>The USA was an exception then (Germany did declare war on it, though). >As well as Canada, Australia and other Commonwealth contries.
USA entered the war after Pearl Harbor, and was engaged in fierce,
if sporadic warfare with Japan. Granted, I should have said "Germany
and/or its allies". Canada and Australia are not an issue - note that
I said "for the most part".
And I disagree with him on whether this is a war against "fascism". I can name a large number of regimes that qualify, under a very similar definition.
no subject
This is a good question. There are historians who prefer to look at it this way, but I do not have an opinion, not being an expert.
And I disagree with him on whether this is a war against "fascism". I can name a large number of regimes that qualify, under a very similar definition.
Well, the word fascism tends to be used so broadly that it loses its edge.