Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 11-15 June 2018 (3761-3765)
pwhodges:
Well, you can't deny that the conference had an effect, which is probably all she was going for...
oddtail:
--- Quote from: pwhodges on 11 Jun 2018, 03:51 ---Well, you can't deny that the conference had an effect, which is probably all she was going for...
--- End quote ---
I know, I'm not saying Bubbles is praising Yalta like this wonderful matchmaking ;)
I do think the comparison is... unfortunate on Jeph's part. I'm sure nothing was meant to be implied by it, but I can't help but read (unintentional) subtext into it.
I consider the use of Yalta as an example of "big event", within this context, to be a little tone-deaf.
pwhodges:
Fair enough; I can see it brings up unhappy thoughts.
BenRG:
At the risk of thread derailment: I entirely understand and empathise with the feelings of the people of Central Europe who feel like their nations were thrown under the bus at Yalta. However, giving Stalin the 'security buffer zone' he demanded was probably the only thing that stopped World War 2 in Europe smoothly seguing into World War 3. This would probably have involved the US throwing every atom bomb it had, as soon as they were built, at Russia without any consideration for the secondary effects of a prolonged bombardment with first-generation 'dirty' fission devices would have on the Eurasian environment.
There is no doubt that Yalta, like Munich before it in 1938, was a bad deal for those people sacrificed like a pawn in a game of chess. However, I would say that there is an argument that it was the least worst option available to avert the prospect of the war in Europe (now between the UK, France and the USA and the Soviet Union) from lasting another 10 years.
oddtail:
--- Quote from: BenRG on 11 Jun 2018, 04:20 ---At the risk of thread derailment: I entirely understand and empathise with the feelings of the people of Central Europe who feel like their nations were thrown under the bus at Yalta. However, giving Stalin the 'security buffer zone' he demanded was probably the only thing that stopped World War 2 in Europe smoothly seguing into World War 3. This would probably have involved the US throwing every atom bomb it had, as soon as they were built, at Russia without any consideration for the secondary effects of a prolonged bombardment with first-generation 'dirty' fission devices would have on the Eurasian environment.
There is no doubt that Yalta, like Munich before it in 1938, was a bad deal for those people sacrificed like a pawn in a game of chess. However, I would say that there is an argument that it was the least worst option available to avert the prospect of the war in Europe (now between the UK, France and the USA and the Soviet Union) from lasting another 10 years.
--- End quote ---
I think Yalta was in some ways a political inevitability. But for one thing, the inevitability is a cold comfort for all those who were thrown under the bus. And for another... the naive approach of Churchill and Roosevelt thinking they could trust a genocidal dictator who came to power by offing anyone who opposed him in his own political in-group... yeah, I know hindsight is 20/20, but I absolutely believe Yalta could have been handled better even from the purely pragmatic standpoint.
And again, what I mind is using Yalta in a comparison to something that changed people's life for the better, where everyone had agency and free choice. My doubts about Churchill's political wisdom (and moral character) are honestly secondary, here.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version