JD Vance Mocked for Embarrassing WWII History Mistake
JD Vance Mocked for Embarrassing WWII History Mistake
www.thedailybeast.com
JD Vance Mocked for Embarrassing WWII History Mistake
50 comments
-
-
“If you go back to World War II, if you go back to World War I. If you go back to every major conflict in human history, they all end with some kind of negotiation,” Vance said.
Crawl back in between the cushions you dumb ass motherfucker. We won't accept this revisionism to benefit your mother Russia.
-
Technically, the status of Germany was settled b by the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, in 1990. That was certainly a negotiated agreement.
-
I mean, the Paris treaty formally ended the war, it's just that Germany wasn't a signatory to it. Turns out if you kill enough Nazis, it doesn't really matter if one signs your treaty or not.
-
Yeah I mean I guess every war technically ends with a treaty or status quo ceasefire, but you're skipping a lot of steps where all of the most egregious nazis were killed or captured first.
You don't have to go as far as the Romans did to Carthage to demand an unconditional surrender through force.
-
-
Negotiating like when someone has a guy on the ground, and keeps punching him in the face, screaming "HAD ENOUGH MOTHERFUCKER?"
Yeah, like that, if you want to call that a negotiation. I mean he did ASK.
-
-
I think he forgot that the fascists were the bad guys.
-
-
Thanks! Hate with a passion how we have to login to read anything these days.
-
You don't need to login to read the Daily Mail, Sun or Fox
-
-
-
The allies negotiated Hitler to a cyanide capsule and bullet to the head.
-
That was Hitler's FINAL offer. The Allies accepted.
-
-
A violent armed robbery is like a negotiation.
You see, people are considering the situation and value is transferred between parties.
I'm so smart. I'm like, negotiating life right now.
-
Haha! -Nelson Muntz
-
Ah yes, dropping bombs is negotiation
-
Can never tell with this kind of turd if they're stupid, lying, or both
-
The answer is yes.
The have been raised and bred with selective information.
And they have been taught you dont matter.
-
I just save time and effort and assume all three. It's almost always correct.
-
-
Nobody understands ww2 like vance. he knew right from when the germans bombed pearl harbor that it would end in negotiation.
-
This is another sign that Trump and Vance are going to sell out Ukraine, through "negotiation."
-
Um, what the actual fuck?
-
Hey USA, get back under the crown
-
Not sure the UK's interested in having us back at this point.
-
And it's not like the UK is doing so hot with their own conservative takeover.
Honestly, I think they get too much credit for having socialized healthcare. On a lot of other metrics, they're not much better than the US.
-
-
-
That he exists is reason enough to mock him.
-
Boo
-
-
What if his plan is to actually drop two bombs on Russia
-
Watched the video but article is login walled and I'm not doing that.
Was there more to what he said? Because he's just making a point that wars end with treaties being signed. Wars don't end with the death of a single leader like Hitler. Germany literally didn't surrender until a week after his suicide. These things do end with treaties and agreements. It's what actually gets troops to stop fighting.
Japan surrender is a more direct example from WW2 he could be referencing too.
But maybe the article explains it more?
I think JD Vance is a moron. But I'm really not seeing what's wrong about him saying wars end with agreements from both sides to stop fighting. Germans, Japanese, and Italians exist today. We didn't just kill them all to end WW2.
Again, that's all I heard him reference in the video. Maybe there is more.
Edit: Someone linked the archive link so I could read it. Thanks.
Article is nitpicking what he said. Sorry, I don't want to defend JD Vance. I really don't. But an unconditional surrender is still an agreement and negotiation between the sides. It's just a case when one side has nothing left to negotiate with. It's not at all counter to the point he was making in that talks and agreements between sides need to occur to end the fighting.
One major agreement of an unconditional surrender is that the troops that disarm won't be slaughtered by the other side when they do.
-
I'm gonna have to disagree that they are the same. Unconditional surrender, occupation of an opposing force, then negotiation to recover leadership of your own territory is not the same as a negotiated cease fire.
-
Wars aren't ended with treaties all the time though. For instance North/South Korea haven't signed anything. Russia and Japan never signed anything after world war 2. I would say Russia signed the Minsk Agreements with Ukraine, but clearly that war is ongoing. China and Taiwan haven't signed anything which is ongoing. The U.S. never declared war on Afghanistan or Iraq, so their was never real peace treaties, but rather peace agreements I guess.
I think the question in the 21st century might be, what is war? What is the scope that defines it, and who has to recognize it for it to "exist.". Is Israel at war with Palestine, Serbia, Yemen, Iran? Was Iran at war with India? Is India at war with China? What is a cold war, and is the U.S. thus still at war with Russia and Iran seperately or together now?
What the hell do we call the U.S.'s operations that have taken place either directly, indirectly, or covertly in South America... And are all countries inevitably at war so long as their economies are clashing within a capitalistic structure with finite resources.
To define peace, we may need to first define war, or vise versa
-
So your response to my comment about this article being nitpicky about terms like: treaties, truce, agreements, etc is to be more nitpicky?
Everything you mentioned had some form of diplomatic talks that ended active fighting (or lead to withdrawal of hostile troops).
It's just odd. You don't need to reach to make JD Vance look stupid. There are plenty of things to shit on him for. But saying "diplomacy is what ends conflicts" is not really one of the things he's said I'd disagree with.
-
-
The problem with our Hitler is that even if we got him trapped in a bunker, I don't think he's handy enough to kill himself.
-
One major agreement of an unconditional surrender is that the troops that disarm won't be slaughtered by the other side when they do.
Holy nitpick Batman. Or strawman? The terms of surrender were unconditional. That their troops wouldn't be slaughtered is implicit and was protected under international law. That's not a negotiation.
-
You know that meme where the guys are in a circle and a guy says something, then a guy gives a big thumbs up and they ignore him? Imagine that group is the allies occupying just about all of German territory, and supporting the new nations they are building in the ashes, and the guy who says something is a small group who can "claim" they represent the previous government, but are frequently not even respected by the pockets of shattered resistance spawned by the rotting corpse of that government. Usually it is referred to as Debellatio. Their state had collapsed. No one really negotiated with them. They can call out "surrender" but the allies and the remaining hardliners did not care.
-
He said every conflict in human history. Its not nitpicking to note the sheer number of times in human history where it ended with one side getting mass murdered.
-
50 comments
Lol I posted this pic in the comments once and it got removed after someone got upset at "seeing dead bodies".
They're just pining for the fjords.
"Not a man, fascists, 309." ~ Ukrainian WWII sniper, Lieutenant Liudmila Pavlichenko
Well, it is gauche.