It is not always possible to do. Italy and Germany were under a brutal dictatorship. The allied intervention was needed to help moderate democratic parties, oppressed by the regime, get the necessary strength to promote positive change. There are lot of nuances to take into consideration for each country.
The Allies didn’t go to war with Italy and Germany because of their internal sociopolitical problems, to instill democracy to dictatorships. They did it because The Axis were invading other countries.
If those dictatorships had kept to themselves they may have survived much longer than they did.
Now I’m not saying this applies to the current circumstance, but just talking WWII.
If they stuck to their own countries, you are probably right that no one would have done anything. But would it have been so great that there was peace as Jewish people in Germany were so brutally killed?
Intervention should not be taken lightly or unilaterally by one or two nations, but it is sonething that should be an option to save a people from “their” government.
Are we stopping at territorial invasion (which Iran committed against UAE)? Iran is providing weapons to Russia, hezbollah, hamas, houtis and Iraqi militias. Iran is attaching ships on international waters. Iran is also active in hybrid cybernetic warfare against western countries. Where is the line you need to cross to make it justifiable to intervene?
Don’t get me wrong, Hitler and the nazis and especially all the bystanders who ignored were all awful, but literally nothing good comes from some foreign countries meddling in other countries politics.
Imagine France decided trump was evil and they would get rid of him and suddenly Macron becomes the leader of the US. Yeah people will be happy that trump is gone, but imagine what happens next: people are mad because they are essentially controlled by a foreign power, their political system just gave weight to some other guy and now the nazis will rise up again because they feel like they need to “liberate” their nation from “the chains of foreign forces” and “make the country strong again”. And this is only national reactions. No one knows what France constitutes as “a dictator”. Maybe Canada is next? Now they have to build defenses against hostile actions like this one. And because France did it, maybe Spain will copycat, and maybe they might pick Portugal just because they would love to indirectly control it. And now you have to justify why that’s different than Russia trying to “purge a country of Nazis”, you know, stuff they are literally using right now to justify their war of aggression.
What I’m trying to say is any countries business is their own. Otherwise every foreign invasion is suddenly up to interpretation and that’s just a bad ground rule for geopolitics.
You are dismissing an example that defeats your first point: indeed something good can come from foreign country meddling. Your “France” example is a case of bad that can also come from meddling. The outcome is what differentiate between good and bad meddling. Was UN and NATO meddling in Kosovo good or bad?
A country’s sociopolitical problems are theirs to solve, not a foreign actor. This should be one of the tenets of self-determination.
It is not always possible to do. Italy and Germany were under a brutal dictatorship. The allied intervention was needed to help moderate democratic parties, oppressed by the regime, get the necessary strength to promote positive change. There are lot of nuances to take into consideration for each country.
This is a stupid take.
The Allies didn’t go to war with Italy and Germany because of their internal sociopolitical problems, to instill democracy to dictatorships. They did it because The Axis were invading other countries.
If those dictatorships had kept to themselves they may have survived much longer than they did.
Now I’m not saying this applies to the current circumstance, but just talking WWII.
If they stuck to their own countries, you are probably right that no one would have done anything. But would it have been so great that there was peace as Jewish people in Germany were so brutally killed?
Intervention should not be taken lightly or unilaterally by one or two nations, but it is sonething that should be an option to save a people from “their” government.
Surely there’s a middle ground between letting a murderous regime stay in power and bombing their civilians?
Well, yes, that’s why I explicitly said I wasn’t saying this would apply to current scenario.
Are we stopping at territorial invasion (which Iran committed against UAE)? Iran is providing weapons to Russia, hezbollah, hamas, houtis and Iraqi militias. Iran is attaching ships on international waters. Iran is also active in hybrid cybernetic warfare against western countries. Where is the line you need to cross to make it justifiable to intervene?
And once the invaders had been put back into Germany, the allies just stopped at the border?
True, we should bring international army to Minnesota, that’s what the people in Minnesota wants: freedom from oppression.
Don’t get me wrong, Hitler and the nazis and especially all the bystanders who ignored were all awful, but literally nothing good comes from some foreign countries meddling in other countries politics.
Imagine France decided trump was evil and they would get rid of him and suddenly Macron becomes the leader of the US. Yeah people will be happy that trump is gone, but imagine what happens next: people are mad because they are essentially controlled by a foreign power, their political system just gave weight to some other guy and now the nazis will rise up again because they feel like they need to “liberate” their nation from “the chains of foreign forces” and “make the country strong again”. And this is only national reactions. No one knows what France constitutes as “a dictator”. Maybe Canada is next? Now they have to build defenses against hostile actions like this one. And because France did it, maybe Spain will copycat, and maybe they might pick Portugal just because they would love to indirectly control it. And now you have to justify why that’s different than Russia trying to “purge a country of Nazis”, you know, stuff they are literally using right now to justify their war of aggression.
What I’m trying to say is any countries business is their own. Otherwise every foreign invasion is suddenly up to interpretation and that’s just a bad ground rule for geopolitics.
You are dismissing an example that defeats your first point: indeed something good can come from foreign country meddling. Your “France” example is a case of bad that can also come from meddling. The outcome is what differentiate between good and bad meddling. Was UN and NATO meddling in Kosovo good or bad?
Some on here told me recently that that’s a perfectly good reason to go bomb another country and kill its leader.