Britain was absolutely not prepared for WW2 but put up a successful resistance.
Are you fucking kidding me
Chamberlain’s entire deal was that he was buying time for Britain to rearm. On top of that, Britain, at the outset of the war, had one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the earth, on account of having massive colonial holdings that needed to be butchered from time to time to ‘keep them in line’.
The US was not prepared for WW2 either, the attack on Pearl Harbor damaged nearly the entire battle fleet.
… we had spent the past several years rebuilding our military, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to knock out one of the most powerful navies in the world.
Sorry, what I meant was “One of the most powerful navies in the world is not a sign of being prepared for war; quite the opposite”
For a more contemporary example, Ukraine was unprepared for the Russian invasion, but has been putting up more of a fight than anyone expected.
Ukraine was unprepared in 2014, when, you know, the Russian military took Crimea bloodlessly and very bloodily took the Donbass. Ever since they’ve been pouring money into the military, especially considering the active phase of the War in the Donbass for the past fucking decade. The military budget almost tripled since 2014 to 2021. And since the start of the 2022 phase of the war, countries which also have prepared for war were instrumental in Ukraine’s defense, providing much of that preparatory material; while many European countries which had been less prepared for war have struggled to provide what Ukraine needs.
Try again.
Then what was the point of your hypothetical?
I had meant geopolitical neighbors, but actual neighbors works as well - you are only able to be free of the threat of violence as a means of conflict resolution because someone (the state in this case) threatens it in your place
Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war, but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor, and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler? Hmm. How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?
Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war,
Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won’t go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla’s army away was won by barbarian allies.
but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor,
No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.
and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler?
Chamberlain’s Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain’s stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.
How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?
Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.
There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.
My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.
On the surface it seems like we’re saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it’s that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.
By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.
Are you fucking kidding me
Chamberlain’s entire deal was that he was buying time for Britain to rearm. On top of that, Britain, at the outset of the war, had one of the most powerful militaries on the face of the earth, on account of having massive colonial holdings that needed to be butchered from time to time to ‘keep them in line’.
… we had spent the past several years rebuilding our military, and the attack on Pearl Harbor was an attempt to knock out one of the most powerful navies in the world.
Sorry, what I meant was “One of the most powerful navies in the world is not a sign of being prepared for war; quite the opposite”
Ukraine was unprepared in 2014, when, you know, the Russian military took Crimea bloodlessly and very bloodily took the Donbass. Ever since they’ve been pouring money into the military, especially considering the active phase of the War in the Donbass for the past fucking decade. The military budget almost tripled since 2014 to 2021. And since the start of the 2022 phase of the war, countries which also have prepared for war were instrumental in Ukraine’s defense, providing much of that preparatory material; while many European countries which had been less prepared for war have struggled to provide what Ukraine needs.
Try again.
I had meant geopolitical neighbors, but actual neighbors works as well - you are only able to be free of the threat of violence as a means of conflict resolution because someone (the state in this case) threatens it in your place
Alright, so by your reckoning Rome was not prepared for war, but the US was prepared for Pearl Harbor, and Chamberlain’s Britain was prepared for Hitler? Hmm. How about the Spanish Invasion of Portugal in the 18th century?
Rome during the Late Empire had neglected the health of its military for a number of reasons that I won’t go into at the moment, since it would take up several comments worth of context. Fuck, the battle that turned Atilla’s army away was won by barbarian allies.
No, the US was prepared for war, not for a specific battle. Hence, you know, having one of the most powerful navies on the face of the earth.
Chamberlain’s Britain was preparing for Hitler, that was the entire point of Chamberlain’s stalling; and again, Britain still had one of the most powerful militaries in the world even before that. Jesus Christ.
Not familiar with it, but I would doubt that being unprepared for war helped them at all. A quick check suggests that the disorder of their ill-prepared army was ruinous and that British assistance was key.
There seems to be a disconnect in how we’re talking about this. You seem to be understanding the quote as a statement on preparedness; if you want peace, you should ensure your military is heavily funded and capable of repelling all comers.
My read was more about anticipation; if you want peace, you should plan for war.
On the surface it seems like we’re saying the same thing, but it comes into conflict when we run into historical examples. Like to my mind, Rome was always preparing for war, at the time of the quote they were waging wars like clockwork. But it’s that very habit of bullying their neighbors that put such a large target on their backs.
By contrast, Britain had been working towards disarmament for years before they shifted gears, there was a reason Chamberlain had to buy so much time. Germany on the other hand had been working tirelessly towards their goals of conquest. Germany had been preparing for war while Britain was preparing for peace.
Does that make sense from your perspective?