Hi everyone, just to clear up a mistake. On some of the maps, Hainan is a part of North Vietnam. It wasn't a part of Vietnam, it was simply a mistake with me either misclicking when colouring the map in or not deleting all of Red Communist China from the map I got the image from. My bad.
@@karma916 I could understand Sebastian opinion though. I mean, Arab Saudi as a champion of women's right? and some shady Somalis as a head of WHO? UN is quite corrupt if we only take a look from those 2 cases, no? might as well get rid of it.
@@Sebastian-dc2qg international diplomacy and agreements would still be required, if the UN was disbanded some other international would replace it, in our internationalized world it's simply impossible (unless you're North Korea) to refuse to participate in the geo-politcs and geo-economics and for that you need to participate in the international community. The independent nation state has been dead for quite some time now and was replaced with a global web of political and (arguably more important) economic relations, wich will inevitably form some sort of international community just to manage relations between different factions (countries).
Which is why China has decided to be at war whilst not actually being at war. Hacking, espionage, accidentally releasing virus, building islands in the sea and claiming new land, basically changing the rules established by old-world powers.
I'm not sure why everyone is saying this aged poorly.....Russia proved the point of this video. They never declared war on Ukraine. It's just a "Special Military Operation." Every quote from Putin has called it a "military operation." Russia has avoided the "war" word the entire time. No formal declaration.
@@Puckosar Same with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. But none of those were formal wars. That is the point of the video. No one formally declares war anymore. This video holds up to the Ukraine conflict as well.
@@thedankone4737 You mean invading Ukraine, shooting civilians (even Russian ones) because USSR styled propaganda of "whole eastern Europe is ours" has gone to far? Because that's more accurate of what is Putin doing rn. Slava Ukrainie
@M True.. It is only ever adhered to when suiting nations holding onto power. We live in a world where a government we do not elect will control our lives.. Thanks USA.. Thanks allot..
@nickys34 Of course you coulddo it similar with a fast mobilization to blitz an unexoected country. But back then rulers like Kings and other monarchs knew what honor is. Today there is no honor anymore. No honor in democracy.
United Nations : War is now illegal Countries : Still make war but call it a "special military operation" United Nations : This world is so peaceful, cheer to us
But they never said that tho? And you just proved the video right, it's not "formally", but countries still know it's war and that it's not super duper cool (in general).
@@Sterkson92 * cause of genocide aspect of it, stealing children, shelling hospitals and schools, shelling at critical energy objects, especially in winter
UN: We just wont tell them that our American Company Called "United Nations" is there to keep the American domination in the world. We wont stop the war. It gives plenty of money to our industry. Our Military complex is the biggest worldwide and needs to be payed by our slavestates. Due to the lack of peace treaties, World War II is still technically not over. Blitzkriege for everyone no announcement necessary if we can use something without having to pay for it. The cycle of perpetrator and victim alternating must be broken. One level for all countries. Who would be the first to cry if other countries created their own banks with their own ratings? Not the USA. The rootless scum made up of alliances and specific families.
I feel like the reverse question is more confusing: why did anyone ever formally declare war? Is the reason mentioned, i.e. to implement emergency domestic powers like drafting people, the main reason? Or is it mainly to force other nations to acknowledge the existence of the war, call upon treaties with allies to force them to help, etc?
I feel like at first it was like more getlè of a nation to do so. Like starting hostile actions against another without declaring your intentions was in someway dishonorable, but that seems counter intuitive as why would you even tell your enemy that your invading.
Because for the(most) europeans and westerners it was very dishonorable and morally wrong to not warn your enemy you were at war before so. Hence why pearl harbor was so enraging to the US in 1941..
*Country invades a smaller country* UN: “Hey you can’t invade another country!” Country: “I’m not invading I’m just giving them a surprise visit.” UN: “Oh in that case, carry on.” Edit: My fucking god, this many likes on this dumb comment?
@@upulor744 No, but what's the point of having something useless besides decoration that no one respects nor you have realistically the power to enforce? That's the UN for you guys
it's more like telling the murderer that the killing has to be done at a certain time, at a certain place, and has to sign a contract. but then the murderer just kills the targeted and calling it an accident or indirect
Not why, but wars had more rules of how they were supposed to be fought. More regimented. Less gorilla war fare. There is a story that during the American revolution, a top British general's dog was found by George Washington. He crossed enemy lines when they weren't fighting to return the dog because that's what was expected. (Washington used this opportunity to collect intel, but he returned the dog)
I feel like countries used to formally declare war as a way of promoting war support and Nationalism to get manpower in the war effort (I’m sure there’s plenty of other reasons too but this one stuck out to me)
UN: war is bad Everyone: ok, let's not call them "wars" anymore. How about apple juice? UN, wouldn't you mind if I declare an apple juice? Apple juice is good.
Year 2146: Throughout history many declarations of apple juice have been made. Apple juice has cost millions their lives. We must avoid apple juice at all cost and call it our for how evil it is. I also prefer apple cider now.
Britian actually did something like this in Malaya (Britian's Vietnam). They formally called it a police operation meaning insurance companies still had to pay for any damages to plantation owners making it the only conflict to improve the economy of a country involved.
Argentina: "Hey UK, you suck!" UK: "Your mom was a hamster and your dad smelt of elderberries." UN barkeeper: "Alright lads, you know the rules. If you want to have a fight you step into the ring, put on your gloves and protective gear and fight 3 rounds with a referee and..." UK: "Wanna settle this outside mate?" Argentina: "Sure thing homie." UN barkeeper: "But...but..."
UN barkeeper: "That's not how you settle things!" UK: "Do you need a bloody reminder about what it means to be a permanent "security council" member means mate!?" UN barkeeper: "You do what you want good Sir but please don't bang my wife, again"
As to why wars these days are smaller (considering the scale that's possible now) and so often conducted by underhanded means, I have this crazy speculative theory: while nuclear deterrence is definitely a part of it, I think it has a lot to do with the scale and lucrative nature of modern trade. Wars are not only riskier and more difficult to prosecute legally, but also bad for the stability of trade. The profit that's possible nowadays might greatly exceed the potential profits possible in wartime, especially since supplying one side or both with weapons and other supplies has to be plausibly deniable and unofficial, generally through illegal arms traders. It's just a wild guess, but I like it.
I have to question the premise. Wars are smaller when they are fought between a super power (the USA) and a weak state (The Gulf War, war in Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan etc). When the combatants are relatively evenly matched (Iran vs Iraq, Russia vs Ukraine) wars are still devastating. Also civil wars (Lebanon, Syria, Darfur) are long lasting and incredibly destructive.
The public aren't educated in Wars. The UK public would not recognise a war if it happened to them. They'd just be confused - fighting themselves. The UK was very smart in World War 2 the country mobilised itself for war, it was organised, to work together against a common enemy. The alternative would of been a defeated nation like Vichy France - the French ruled by the Nazi Germans. The French once defeated had no choice but to Collaborate with the German nation to survive. Rebellion or opposition in Vichy France equalled death, the German nation was too powerful to oppose.
@@munkeyluv2011 you really CAN attack a modern nation today. You CAN disrupt a modern nation. You can disrupt a country by Public Opinion and Information by use of the Internet. The UK public are on their smartphones 24 7 and can be manipulated into an opinion, panic or a certain point of view. The internet is A new method of warfare and crime.
Take China/Taiwan for example. One of the main reasons China can't* risk an invasion is because Taiwan has a stranglehold on the world's microchip production. Some 90% of superconductors come out of a handful of Taiwanese factories. A war would basically shut down the world's production of computers *Shouldn't...
Add to that the unsustainability of a large scale war. Think about it. Weapons manufacturers can either sell mass produced cheap weapons to everyone for a few years until the war ends simply because everyone is dead, or they can develop expensive, high tech military hardware for a select few which can be used in nice, sustainable local conflicts indefinitely. Iraq over? Invade Sudan. Sudanese not putting up a fight? Lets go to Venezuela. Uh oh, the next generation of Afghanis have grown up hating the west, lets go take care of that... (These aren't real examples, I'm just tired) That's why the US has been at war since its inception, but never started a major conflict
Formal war declarations became obsolete when Japan proved to the entire world that you could just politely decline them and thus avoid conflict. For those who didn’t understand : after Japan bombed pearl harbor, Poland’s government in exile sent a formal war declaration to them. Since the Japanese government knew that Poland couldn’t actually fight them, they just sent a message back to decline their war declaration.
Bully: *punches the kid at the exit* Director: "hey you are going to get in trouble" UN: nah technically he didn't said it was a fight... He just punched him Director: *:0*
War is only comercial to the "elite". You basicly dont realize you live in side it. All for 1 and 1 for all is not helping for these people. Info company etc. Self help is all these people offer and then there are none. Its basicly a get well scam.
Fun fact about the Falklands' war: Brazil was openly neutral, but when a British bomber was forced to land in Brazil for lack of fuel, Brazil apprehended the bomber and only after some very heated discussions with Britain we turned it back, without their missiles and after a very careful inspection, lol. Years later we'd end up buying the same British frigate ships that participated there and some are still active today and we have had a fairly good relationship with UK since then, even buying the HMS Ocean recently
I think that politically, "Declaring War" also comes off as unduly hostile towards that country. Like, during the 2003 Iraq war, George W. Bush always emphasized that "our feud is not with the Iraqi people." Declaring war "on" the entire country, as opposed to just going to war against its (likely) unpopular and undemocratic government is a much easier sell both at home and to that country itself.
To be fair, it wasn’t the fact that we entered there country that a portion of Middle East civilians dislike the US, it was the fact we overstayed our welcome. If you look at videos after Saddam was captured and killed you can see Iraqi Citizens crowding the streets with joy, hugging American and the Coalition soldiers, flags hoisted, etc. but we overstayed our welcome after the threat was defeated. I think there’s nothing wrong with staying a little bit in order to make sure no other megalomaniac tries to take power and erupt a civil war, but the fact that we waited until 2011 to get the “last” of our troops out means we overstayed our welcome.
Tbf to the UN, the first objective is to prevent something on the scale of WW2. Yea, the smaller wars, it won't work 100% of the time but hey, at least nuclear bombs ain't flying over our heads
Nowadays wars are not fought militarily, they are fought economically. Edit: lots of people read my comment like Mormons and Ned Flanders read the bible, so quite literally. What I mean is of course there are still wars being fought with weapons, but the most powerful countries, mostly of the west prefer not to engage in wars Vietnam style or WW2, they do so by crippling other countries economies instead.
i part of me feel bad about what is happening in Syria but the other part of me feel if you deserved it. history has shown foreign intervention in a civil war has never worked well for the people in the civil war, your own people accepted the foreign intervention now you are paying that price.
@@wei270 not all Syrians accepted the foreign intervention.. but sadly i admit.. if Syrians hadn't been already divided and if there hadn't been a lot of hatred within them none of this would have happened.. and the saddest part is that after 9 years that hatred still exists, actually it's worse than before💔
@@AAlrayes13 of course it would be foreign intervention tent to prolong civil conflict, the Syrian government was close to closing out the conflict last year, then turkey came in hard again. Syrian people need to understand foreign government don't give a shit about their lives or if Syrians can't stop fighting amount them self's the on ultimately suffer the most is them self.
Anas Alrayes bro fellow syrian here from Hasakeh .. it's going down hill with our currency collapsing .. war is one thing , but economic sanctions are something only the scum of the earth would try to defend ! They affect the average working citizen way more than they affect the government the sanctions are "supposedly" targetting
UN: "So guys we introduced this thing called War crimes tribunals, so we expect from you to respect it. That means if you are in the war you must respect rules of war!" Great powers: *"Hah, but those are not war crimes if you're not at war!"*
I also have to believe that due to the prevalence of total wars and the effects of the world wars, war in general is just more costly to fight when properly declared. Napoleon's "Levee en masse" and "Nation at war" was too effective and when the Prussians succeeded his system unified Germany and led to the world wars. Thus as a general rule when you declare war, you go BIG and totally mobilize. It's just not an option to not go full on to war thanks to how destructive and intensive modern industrial wars are. America's precedent of an undeclared war from Vietnam might have saved us from WW3 since you have options to de-escalate and overall can keep from a total war.
That’s actually why there was no declaration of war from the Union in 1861. From our (and the world’s; no one ever recognized them) persepctive, the Confederacy didn’t exist.
@@zenkisaragi1551 Well it sure as hell wasn't a win. In a short phrase, Vietnam was a disaster. If you'd like some details there are quite a few podcasts on it. Some of the content can be disturbing so I'd be careful delving too deeply. The images of the effects of Agent Orange is one example. We did some fucked up shit down there, and it was not a moment for Americans to ever be proud of.
@@Tomi97_videos everyone ignores it... and they didn't create it, they just funded it. Everyone rags on the U.S., but conveniently ignore that without the U.S. throwing their weight around, WW3 would almost certainly have already happened.
I think it's also due to cultural reasons. Before WW1, a declaration of war was seen as a show of strength. Also, the population glorified "civilised" war, and just attacking out of the blue was looked down upon.
@Roughman There is literally nothing preventing one nation from making a formal declaration of war on another which is significantly weaker/at some sort of disadvantage due to distraction, turmoil, or anything else. A few hours to a few day's (or even weeks) notice via formal "declaration" would almost never wipe out any advantage, or give any significant time to rectify any disadvantages, and if the nation you're going to war with can fix their weaknesses and put up a serious fight in just a matter of days... then going to war with them in the first place seems pretty foolish. So basically I don't think your point is valid at all.
ww2 most country don't want to declare war with german either... they need to be push to the point that other country will to sympathy and support supply and sell and send food...
Seriously speaking I guess most of the world politics is kinda MMA fight done instead of war, actual war is only when you can't negotiate about rules, but both think you could just smash opponent with your wrench anyway
@Emperor of Man That's Senko the Fox. I already forgot the name of the anime but i remember it being the most popular thing while airing because wholesome
It's also because for the most part, everyones technology is more or less equal to each others. No one would win a war, not with nuclear weapons dangling above our heads.
@@aoterou not really, there were way more casualties for Vietnam and for America, there was just no point in fighting and most Americans were against it so they stopped
@@izzfitri6888 The precursor to Pearl Harbour was the US and the League of nations imposed an oil embargo against Japan over their invasion of Manchuria. And before that Japan despite being one of the victors on WW1 did not get a cut from German reparations nor entry into the League of nations. It's not exactly a surprise that a nation under a US imposed embargo, with a sour relationship attacked the US. Nor is it surprising that Russia, a nation that is under a US embargo over Ukraine; is accused of state sponsored cyber warfare.
I always thought the idea of declaring a war as stupid as it would basically give the other side to prepare for an attack, but hearing that it was so they could start drafting troops it makes a whole lot more sense.
That rather depends. Take a look at WWI. Fighting did not start until a couple of weeks AFTER the formal declarations of war. This is for a very good reason. The armies of the major powers were, with one exception, large conscript based forces. During peace many of their Divisions were at half or quarter strength, some even less. Those Divisions had to be filled with returning draftees, their heavy equipment pulled out of storage, checked and issued. Weapons, uniforms and supplies properly assigned, then those troops, their weapons, and their equipment have to be moved to their start up positions. When you are talking between 100 and 120 Divisions, each Division comprising of around 15,000 men plus artillery, supply train, etc etc, you start seeing why a Declaration of war was no big deal. There is absolutely no way you can hide the fact that you are mobilising several million troops ready to fight and even with the staggering Rail infrastructure both France and Germany had at the time it took several weeks for mobilisation to be along far enough for the Plans to be initiated. Even without a formal declaration of war, because of the scale of the mobilisation, and how long it necessarily took, and of course how blindingly obvious it would be, both sides would have been ready for each other with or without a declaration. The only exception to this was Britain, who was able to mobilise her army pretty much immediately. Problem was the BEF was *tiny*, some 4 Divisions rising to 6 by the time the fighting had actually started. This is because unlike Germany or France, Britains primary military Arm was her Navy, her Army was traditionally very small and professional. Many of the issues Britain struggled with for the first couple of years of the war can be fairly solidly linked to the fact that they had to expand their army from a small professional force of some 300 odd thousand men, to a force of 4 million in less than 2 years, and they had to do this whilst their cadre of Professionals was bleeding out at Ypres...... It led to major training issues that were not addressed until near the end of the Battle of the Somme... and was one of the reasons why the First Day of the Somme went the way it did.... Those troops were green as hell, and not fully trained..... Haig did not want to commit his army (though he was fine with maintaining a defensive posture) in an attack until 1917, however, Verdun intervened, and the British were essentially faced with the need to relieve the intense pressure the French were under at Verdun.
It's really not. Declaring a war is a powerful statement in its own right and can curtail a war before it starts. It also signifies your intentions with your allies allowing them to justify assisting you. It's a powerful diplomatic move.
@@jerm70 And we have no interest in being diplomatic anymore. We just wave our figuratively big dick around and slap smaller countries in the face with it. And any time anyone objects, we threaten to pull out of the UN... which would severely neuter it, as it has little to no power without the US. Which also means UN rules don't apply to us.... Pretty OP if you ask me.
I might be wrong but for some countries receiving a declaration of war might make them try to reach an agreement and peace deal before any violence occurs
@@senseishu937 That is certainly an option. There is no rule that says when war is declared upon someone, that they are obligated to respond in kind. But when the one whom war had been declared on asks for peace, and the other refuses and continues aggression, that risks painting them as the aggressor and pissing off allies or neighboring nations. So, while responding peacefully to a peace offer is not an obligation either,... it is a damned good idea to do so
USA to North korea: ima do a surprise attack. UN To USA: No, here are rules. USA to UN: **ima do whats called a pro gamer move** doesn't declare it war but a conflict. UN: surprised pikachu face
Fungamerplays Actually, there are no “UN rules” on the declarations of war. The declarations of war were frequent before the UN existed, because all wars, just or unjust, were equal. Now, that the UN is solely authorized to decide which war is “just”, there is no point in the official state of war
jurisprudens Well it’s bad because before at least the civilians could be warned that there is war. Now the civilians only see the bombs drop. The UN (and terrorists as they aren’t an organized military with uniforms) made geopolitics into a barbarian mess.
feels similar to people in pseudo relationships, that are basically relationships, but no one in the relationship says they're in a relationship, but everyone around them says they are basically in a relationship...
So what you're saying is that the only reason UN has stopped declarations of wars is by a) Bothering people with the bureaucracy of declaring it. b) Having people just work around their rules.
Not exactly, not one war since the UN’s foundation has escalated to the levels of death and violence sustained in the wars of the first half of the 20th century, im sure if you ask around most would prefer a Gulf War (or Desert Storm if you’re American) to a Balkan’s war
1:02 "It didn't recognize North Vietnamese independence" Well I'm glad History Matters made them feel better by giving them Hainan province (0:54, 1:18, 1:47).
Well, North Vietnam was also a Soviet puppet, and South Vietnam was fighting against the French before the Indochinese Communist Party existed. The ICP/VCP was trying to wipe out non-communist rebels since the 1930's, you know.
@@DTD110865 North Vietnam wasn't a puppet state but it was reliant on the USSR (just not taking orders). South Vietnam however ended up being a puppet state (US having a say in elections).
DTD110865 South Vietnam was not fighting against the French, they WAS a pro-French government set up i opposition to the Communist-leaning Viet Minh by France back in the 1st Indochina War, and later received support by the US in the 2nd.
@@kokorochacarero8003 so you think he'll win reelection ? and btw Trump did well in avoiding war so far, he's 'started'/ joined less wars then the presidents before him so I'd say no it probably won't be him starrting them
@@BushBumperBaker no, like I said it was a historical quote and if you want the proper quote then "War is delightful to those who had no experience of it" -Desiderius Erasmus
cod uses quotes all the time in 4 you got one every time you die and in the newest you even see a clip of Yuri bezmenov talking about cultural subversion which was the real war.
@@porterj9360 Never played COD so I wouldn't know and if they have a lot of similar quotes then they must be a bunch of plagiarists then. No offense to the games and all but like I said it came from Erasmus from a dutch philosopher. Do I need to eleborate more? Sigh.
Before people say this aged like milk russia technically didn't declare war they called it a military operation (which i mean really stretched declare war lol)
The 14 Part Message that was a little late was not a declaration of war. The ending simply said, "The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.", which was not the explicit declaration of belligerency required by Hague III (1907), article 1, "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
I think there is one important aspect of this that you missed, and that was the nature of the Cold War détente. While the USSR and the USA each felt they needed to check the other's power and expand their own influence in order to prevent their opponent from doing the same, it was of overriding and existential importance to both nations that their conflict not become openly belligerent. In the USSR's case, while it had an autocratic government and its leaders could do as they please without too much worry that the population would resist them, the basis of their foreign policy was that they were simply assisting native revolts against foreign imperialist powers. The USSR could not therefore afford to admit the full extent of its own colonial and imperialist ambitions without undermining its own success. But the USA was even more handicapped, because it's military was in theory under the command and control of the civil leadership and the public. And in it's own wargames, whenever it played the game strictly with professional soldiers, both the Blue and Red sides of the conflict inevitably deescalated before reaching full scale nuclear. But whenever it brought real civilian leaders into the game to simulate the civilian chain of command, those same war games inevitably escalated into full scale nuclear combat. It therefore became the policy very early on in the Cold War to essentially conceal the full extent to which the USA was in direct conflict with the USSR and the full extent of the USSR's direct engagement in global conflicts, because it was afraid that if - for example - the American people came to understand that it was in fact Soviet pilots shooting down American pilots over Korea that the American people would demand a widening of the war that would eventually escalate out of control. So not only was declaring war politically complicated in terms of both foreign policy and domestic policy, but the fear was that such declarations of war might push the conflict into an escalating cycle of wounded national pride and honor.
We saw the opposite of that when the civilian authority (Truman) sacking McArthur when he demanded to carry the Korean War into China in 1950. Its always good to have checks on power. If the Soviets ever had a premier dead set on nuclear war with the west, there was little to nothing that could stop him.
Both valid points. In addition the 'cold' part of the war allowed for increasingly wider espionage ploys while not provoking international action. Much like a giant chess game, but both sides can only see the own pieces, with occasional glimpses at the whole board. Each sides military veterans have remarked at the 'fun and frivolity' of tilting at windmills with the other; even if the outcomes were dire. I believe the Cuban Missile crisis is the best example of checks and balances during the cold war. Both sides toed the line but ultimately stayed their hands.
Might just be blowing smoke out of my ass, but you can almost see it as a result of American and Russia not really learning from the mistakes of WW1 (and WW2 if you're Germany) about excessive nationalism and national pride and honor. America never had to feel the full effects of war like Britain and France did (and maybe even seeing a lot of benefits from it on the economic side) while Russia could chalk WW1 under "the Tsar is stupid and incompetent" and see WW2 as a defense of the nation in which they succeeded through strength and nationalism. Still though, great post mate!
"We will be conducting a war on terror. State funded Terror. States like Russia.... we are going to war with Russia.... But in Syria, against the Syrian government, by funding, arming, and training the ISIS cells... who aren't ISIS cells while under our protection, because we are against the terrorists."
@J R to be real all the powers are expanding tho the US are in the middle East and Venezuela. China are doing the same with Hong Kong and Tibet. World's fucked man, heres hoping Europe stays out off the next WW we've seen enough of this shit.
I miss the times when people came out with signs to declare things like war and war support. I remember when Hitler ran through Poland with a sign saying “I’m going to be declaring war on you.” I also remember the time Hitler ran through the cold Russian weather with a sign saying “I’m going to break out truce before winter.”
this is exactly why countries don't declare war on each other! i'm so glad not a single war has broken out since then, what a peaceful world! edit: what
yeah, well even the Russia ambassador to the UN deny that it's a "war", and instead call it a "special military exercise". It's all bullshit of course, but there is some truth to the conclusion of this video-formally declaring war is too politically unpopular, so they just avoid calling it that
AwakeWheel8856 But trade war, spies, border disputes and testing missiles are type of action just like the Cold War. It’s not like actually war on battlefield but rather economic and strategy for whose better and wanna be better.
It's actually because the right to start WW3 is reserved to Germany but it doesn't really have any kind of useful military right now. So they don't want to trigger it just yet ;)
@@derfzgrld We're kind of not allowed to start any more wars. You might want to hand that torch to Austria. They're getting pretty cozy with the wrong political parties again. We just wanna survive and get rid of the few idiots that remain that are stupid enough to act like we did nothing wrong during WWII.
Japan: Attacks unsuspecting country before actually declaring war and declares war after crippling their navy Rest of the World: Write that down, write that down!
Or when Japan attacked North China in 1935. Tho, actually that wasn't so unexpectable. Before attacking Pearl Harbor,USA and Japan had economic conflict,and USA had made prices on oil(if I'm not mistaken) soo low,that Japan's economic simply couldn't afford theirs expansion in the Oceania. And thus, Japan attacked
I like how the UN effectively banned wars by bureaucratically over complicating the paperwork, but then does nothing to actually keep people from fighting. Just like how Timmy in the back seat of the car keeps poking his sister while exclaiming "I'm not touching you", and the parents actually believing his words.
The classic case of "if a law is declare, but there is no cop to enforce it, is it really a law?". But in this case, said law was declared by the civilians (super powers) who also act as the cop, who instead use to shoot first
"They're not wars, they're peacekeeping operations." - Countries to the UN "They can't declare war because the nation they're gonna go to war with was guaranteed by a bloody democracy." - HOI4 players
That's actually an interesting point. The UN itself is a belligerent "state" in some conflicts, most notably in the Congo where it has actual direct operational control over its own forces there and has gone all Master Chief on belligerent forces there, sending troops into action in an overtly aggressive and hostile manner, a war fighting manner in fact. The UN of course has no legal means to declare war, particularly so the fact that it can't go to war against itself, in this case the Dem. Rep of Congo, a member state. It would be like the US declaring war on Texas! Thus the UN terms all offensive missions it carries out directly as "peacekeeping operations". If you've ever seen the UN actually go into battle offensively they look anything but like "peacekeeping".
What stops a country from punishing terrorism with death? No declaration of war, equals terrorism, so no POW's. Or in other words no war, no warcrimes, just special treatments for captured persons, under special circumstances. Seems to be the perfect time for extended medical research opportunities. Fascinating how a piece of paper can change the POV.
The lack of jurisdiction of the laws and courts of one country over foreign citizens in a foreign country stops this scenario. As for the medical research, such practices are prohibited by dozens of international treaties that also apply during peacetime, not just the Geneva convention. Furthermore, I believe the Geneva convention also applies to police actions and non-declared conflicts
Good question, Peter. Why would governments avoid war crimes if there was technically no war? Because it could go both sides. You may get your captured soldiers killed. Similarly, there's Prisoner Exchange. If you killed PoWs on sight, you now have nothing to give in return when exchanging prisoners.
maybe the fear of reciprocation, likewise soldiers don't enjoy torturing their enemy, this is reserved to an extremely small subset of the military, when the normal infantry is asked to commit large scale war crimes their morale tends to tank
@@kevintate3752 What makes you think the situation with China would be any different if Hillary were in charge, or Biden for that matter? You're a fool to blame Trump for this regardless of what he's done. Trying to pin things like the Hong Kong protests or the Uighur camps on Trump is foolhardy and disingenuous, and a check on China needs to happen regardless of who is president of the USA. The CCP is a bigger problem for the world than Trump, if you can believe it.
MAPLE SYRUP • 99 years ago problem is while the U.K. were definitely directly responsible, the root of those problems that they caused: Israel, African states, Saudi and Iran rivalry, Pakistan meddling, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia being divided, are deeply rooted in the history of those regions. It’s a continuing legacy of those regions, perhaps except for Malaysia and Indonesia split and Israel. African tribes have always been at each other’s neck save for a few period of everyone under one rule, Shia and Sunni Muslim conflicts happened right after the Prophet’s death, the Arabs and Persians rivalry happens a few decades after that, the Indian subcontinents have been divided for centuries. Conflict is natural in those parts, the British merely adds fuel to the fire. The membership of the U.N. Security council that to me is the most problematic is the Chinese one. They are powerful, no doubt, but the U.N actually ripped that off the hand of the ROC to give it to the CCP in 1970s. It’s real politics at its best.
2:41 Chile was used for reconnaissance is an understatement. Chile was rival with the Argentines and they helped spy on them, basically radars in Chile allowed the British to know when, where and how many Argentine aircraft were taking off, and I believe even where they were going, this allowed excellent intercepts. It make Argentina think the British had many more aircraft then they actually because seemed to be everywhere (kinda like battle of Britain).
Basically, a formal declaration of war has consequences for politicians, and they have decided they only want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Hi everyone, just to clear up a mistake. On some of the maps, Hainan is a part of North Vietnam. It wasn't a part of Vietnam, it was simply a mistake with me either misclicking when colouring the map in or not deleting all of Red Communist China from the map I got the image from. My bad.
I saw that and I was like: "WAIT A MINUTE!"
Fix it then.
@@xky8124 that would involve taking down the video and re-uploading it.
China at it again.
No problem
UN: *creates restrictions on war to try to bring world peace*
Everyone: *Just stops declaring wars*
UN: *shocked pikachu face*
I can't wait for the day in which the UN doesn't exist anymore
Sebastian from that comment alone I can tell you don’t understand the purpose of the UN
More like bigger countries just fund smaller scale proxy wars in less powerful countries.
@@karma916 I could understand Sebastian opinion though. I mean, Arab Saudi as a champion of women's right? and some shady Somalis as a head of WHO? UN is quite corrupt if we only take a look from those 2 cases, no? might as well get rid of it.
@@Sebastian-dc2qg international diplomacy and agreements would still be required, if the UN was disbanded some other international would replace it, in our internationalized world it's simply impossible (unless you're North Korea) to refuse to participate in the geo-politcs and geo-economics and for that you need to participate in the international community.
The independent nation state has been dead for quite some time now and was replaced with a global web of political and (arguably more important) economic relations, wich will inevitably form some sort of international community just to manage relations between different factions (countries).
Why don’t countries declare war?
...because war has a bunch of rules
War is hard
LilacDoe war is stupid
Funny considering how war used to be easy and often the only solution. Now you can't go around and say "yeah, we're at war" anymore
War is futile
Which is why China has decided to be at war whilst not actually being at war. Hacking, espionage, accidentally releasing virus, building islands in the sea and claiming new land, basically changing the rules established by old-world powers.
In short : The rules of a proper war are too annoying so let's just ignore them
Indead
Can the same apply with warcrimes?
@@srgforge2993 I think that's exactly what they did
- Germany, 1940-1945
srg forge2 warcrimes only matter if you lose the war
I'm not sure why everyone is saying this aged poorly.....Russia proved the point of this video. They never declared war on Ukraine. It's just a "Special Military Operation." Every quote from Putin has called it a "military operation." Russia has avoided the "war" word the entire time. No formal declaration.
Not that that changes anything, it's a fucking war. But then again Russians aren't big on truth overall
@@Puckosar
Same with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, etc. But none of those were formal wars. That is the point of the video. No one formally declares war anymore. This video holds up to the Ukraine conflict as well.
Yes, it's an incursion, a conflict
And we all see how well *THAT* turned out...
Yep
instead of declaring war, they declare special military operations
Hahaha nice one
@@thedankone4737 You mean invading Ukraine, shooting civilians (even Russian ones) because USSR styled propaganda of "whole eastern Europe is ours" has gone to far? Because that's more accurate of what is Putin doing rn.
Slava Ukrainie
Special Nazi killing operations
@@ElusiveCrustGaming which truth? That war sucks?
@@ElusiveCrustGaming I think that's you not him
The world tension isn't high enough for democracies to justify war goals.
Momo the EnderKitty huzzah! A man of quality
Momo the EnderKitty I see that you are a man of culture
Pffff what a bunch of noobs, why don't they just get the instant war mod ?
Momo the EnderKitty yeah we all gotta turn facist
They can get into certain conflicts if they spend some political power though.
UN: if you declare war, you can’t do X Y and Z
Powers: fine, we’ll not “declare” war
@M it has power so long as the global powers say it does. If they dont it goes the way of the League of Nations
@M True.. It is only ever adhered to when suiting nations holding onto power. We live in a world where a government we do not elect will control our lives.. Thanks USA.. Thanks allot..
@nickys34 Of course you coulddo it similar with a fast mobilization to blitz an unexoected country. But back then rulers like Kings and other monarchs knew what honor is. Today there is no honor anymore. No honor in democracy.
@@KubusSc7 there is exactly as much honour as is convenient and beneficial to those in power, as has always been the case.
And yet, all these efforts to justify or condemn actions in the context of international law.
United Nations : War is now illegal
Countries : Still make war but call it a "special military operation"
United Nations : This world is so peaceful, cheer to us
But they never said that tho?
And you just proved the video right, it's not "formally", but countries still know it's war and that it's not super duper cool (in general).
Yeah, same thing happened when USA started military peace operation in Afghanistan, Israel etc.
In war you capture tesources and territory. In military ops you achive goals. War in Ukraine is a war cause of ocupation
@@Sterkson92 * cause of genocide aspect of it, stealing children, shelling hospitals and schools, shelling at critical energy objects, especially in winter
To be fair: There are way less wars going on worldwide than ever before. Even including special military operations.
The UN: *makes laws to prevent war*
Everyone: "okay we just won't tell them"
UN: We just wont tell them that our American Company Called "United Nations" is there to keep the American domination in the world. We wont stop the war. It gives plenty of money to our industry. Our Military complex is the biggest worldwide and needs to be payed by our slavestates. Due to the lack of peace treaties, World War II is still technically not over. Blitzkriege for everyone no announcement necessary if we can use something without having to pay for it. The cycle of perpetrator and victim alternating must be broken. One level for all countries.
Who would be the first to cry if other countries created their own banks with their own ratings? Not the USA. The rootless scum made up of alliances and specific families.
@@datenspeicher8715 Woah...
@@datenspeicher8715 calm down with the mushrooms cowboy😂
@@tollevkvendbo I dont need mushrooms to be connected.
@@datenspeicher8715 hahahahaha. What is your thoughts on Trump/Biden, covid, vaccines, abortion and immigrants?
If you declare war, you lose your surprise round and sneak attack bonus
Spoken like a master of Command and Conquer, lol
Attacking without declaring war will also harm the reputation of the said country.
@@Jedssski Reputation? All I see is dead bodies from my successful sneak attack!
@@alzhanvoid 😈
@@johnreno4156 Kirov reporting
I feel like the reverse question is more confusing: why did anyone ever formally declare war? Is the reason mentioned, i.e. to implement emergency domestic powers like drafting people, the main reason? Or is it mainly to force other nations to acknowledge the existence of the war, call upon treaties with allies to force them to help, etc?
this deserves a video on
ninjafruitchilled I would add to the debate the civilian psychological factor.
I feel like at first it was like more getlè of a nation to do so. Like starting hostile actions against another without declaring your intentions was in someway dishonorable, but that seems counter intuitive as why would you even tell your enemy that your invading.
One of those funny things Europe used to do
Because for the(most) europeans and westerners it was very dishonorable and morally wrong to not warn your enemy you were at war before so. Hence why pearl harbor was so enraging to the US in 1941..
Apparently the word "formally" is lost on half the people in the comments section who think this video aged poorly 🤣.
Far too many people don't know how to read properly. Most of the time they just read what fits their agenda, and ignore key details.
@@metalswifty23 exactly
It's even more concerning than that. Because it implies that those people see Ukraine as a "real war" but not, say, Vietnam, Gulf, Afghanistan, etc.
I literally see no comments that think this video aged poorly
Imagine just world leaders being sent emails stating “hey I’m gonna be in a war with you now”
lol, why the fck would they use email?🤣 jist send a warship to the enemies border and make a blank shots
@@zulhazman7526 true. ,_, but they could always just launch a missile from across the world.
"k"
"nah Not in the mood for it fam"
Lol
*Country invades a smaller country*
UN: “Hey you can’t invade another country!”
Country: “I’m not invading I’m just giving them a surprise visit.”
UN: “Oh in that case, carry on.”
Edit: My fucking god, this many likes on this dumb comment?
Sounds like EA.
"They're just surprise mechanics!"
this sound exactly you and sibling would say to not get in trouble.
UN: Understandable, have a great day
USA. "Im spreading democracy"
Australia. "Im just tagging along"
@@DJPega6 it's is EA
Restrictions on war sounds like telling a murderer killing is illegal.
Not necessarily, war was a valid political instrument back then
So should we just abolish laws then?
@@upulor744 No, but what's the point of having something useless besides decoration that no one respects nor you have realistically the power to enforce? That's the UN for you guys
You do have a point.
it's more like telling the murderer that the killing has to be done at a certain time, at a certain place, and has to sign a contract. but then the murderer just kills the targeted and calling it an accident or indirect
I feel like this needs a companion video, "why did countries formally declare war?" to explain why things changed.
Not why, but wars had more rules of how they were supposed to be fought. More regimented. Less gorilla war fare.
There is a story that during the American revolution, a top British general's dog was found by George Washington. He crossed enemy lines when they weren't fighting to return the dog because that's what was expected. (Washington used this opportunity to collect intel, but he returned the dog)
@@melissaharris3890 gorilla war fare.
@@melissaharris3890 At least Mel Gibson kept Cornwallis' dogs. Those were nice dogs.
Nothing has changed. If youre talking about Ukraine, Russia has not declared war
I feel like countries used to formally declare war as a way of promoting war support and Nationalism to get manpower in the war effort (I’m sure there’s plenty of other reasons too but this one stuck out to me)
UN: war is bad
Everyone: ok, let's not call them "wars" anymore. How about apple juice? UN, wouldn't you mind if I declare an apple juice? Apple juice is good.
Year 2146: Throughout history many declarations of apple juice have been made. Apple juice has cost millions their lives. We must avoid apple juice at all cost and call it our for how evil it is. I also prefer apple cider now.
And since then, people drink war.
Britian actually did something like this in Malaya (Britian's Vietnam). They formally called it a police operation meaning insurance companies still had to pay for any damages to plantation owners making it the only conflict to improve the economy of a country involved.
@Vequio Ourax who do you mean? The "apple juicy" thing or the person above u?
Hamburger time is a good name too
Argentina: "Hey UK, you suck!"
UK: "Your mom was a hamster and your dad smelt of elderberries."
UN barkeeper: "Alright lads, you know the rules. If you want to have a fight you step into the ring, put on your gloves and protective gear and fight 3 rounds with a referee and..."
UK: "Wanna settle this outside mate?"
Argentina: "Sure thing homie."
UN barkeeper: "But...but..."
@Danny cu
You really should have more upvotes
UN barkeeper: "That's not how you settle things!"
UK: "Do you need a bloody reminder about what it means to be a permanent "security council" member means mate!?"
UN barkeeper: "You do what you want good Sir but please don't bang my wife, again"
@Muhammad Rizka
U.K: Too late, she's expecting
I recognise the elderberries insult but I can’t remember where from, can somebody remind me please?
@@SlideIX EU4
Can’t declare war on someone who doesn’t exist.
Justinian makes Byzantium Great Again which means country can’t be persecuted for annexation of Dania
Byzantine Empire sucks.
@@kfraser3783 every great empire has its ups and downs.
@@adnanchinisi7871 Byzantine all have downs
too bad the ottomans exist
As to why wars these days are smaller (considering the scale that's possible now) and so often conducted by underhanded means, I have this crazy speculative theory: while nuclear deterrence is definitely a part of it, I think it has a lot to do with the scale and lucrative nature of modern trade. Wars are not only riskier and more difficult to prosecute legally, but also bad for the stability of trade. The profit that's possible nowadays might greatly exceed the potential profits possible in wartime, especially since supplying one side or both with weapons and other supplies has to be plausibly deniable and unofficial, generally through illegal arms traders.
It's just a wild guess, but I like it.
I have to question the premise.
Wars are smaller when they are fought between a super power (the USA) and a weak state (The Gulf War, war in Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan etc). When the combatants are relatively evenly matched (Iran vs Iraq, Russia vs Ukraine) wars are still devastating.
Also civil wars (Lebanon, Syria, Darfur) are long lasting and incredibly destructive.
The public aren't educated in Wars. The UK public would not recognise a war if it happened to them. They'd just be confused - fighting themselves. The UK was very smart in World War 2 the country mobilised itself for war, it was organised, to work together against a common enemy. The alternative would of been a defeated nation like Vichy France - the French ruled by the Nazi Germans. The French once defeated had no choice but to Collaborate with the German nation to survive. Rebellion or opposition in Vichy France equalled death, the German nation was too powerful to oppose.
@@munkeyluv2011 you really CAN attack a modern nation today. You CAN disrupt a modern nation. You can disrupt a country by Public Opinion and Information by use of the Internet. The UK public are on their smartphones 24 7 and can be manipulated into an opinion, panic or a certain point of view. The internet is A new method of warfare and crime.
Take China/Taiwan for example. One of the main reasons China can't* risk an invasion is because Taiwan has a stranglehold on the world's microchip production. Some 90% of superconductors come out of a handful of Taiwanese factories. A war would basically shut down the world's production of computers
*Shouldn't...
Add to that the unsustainability of a large scale war. Think about it. Weapons manufacturers can either sell mass produced cheap weapons to everyone for a few years until the war ends simply because everyone is dead, or they can develop expensive, high tech military hardware for a select few which can be used in nice, sustainable local conflicts indefinitely. Iraq over? Invade Sudan. Sudanese not putting up a fight? Lets go to Venezuela. Uh oh, the next generation of Afghanis have grown up hating the west, lets go take care of that... (These aren't real examples, I'm just tired)
That's why the US has been at war since its inception, but never started a major conflict
Formal war declarations became obsolete when Japan proved to the entire world that you could just politely decline them and thus avoid conflict.
For those who didn’t understand : after Japan bombed pearl harbor, Poland’s government in exile sent a formal war declaration to them. Since the Japanese government knew that Poland couldn’t actually fight them, they just sent a message back to decline their war declaration.
Excuse me what?
Yes, excuse him what?
Um....what?
@@hg2aa No, you are not excused, sorry
What?
“We weren’t fighting, their face simply collided with my fist.”
😂😂😂😂😂
I will try to use this one day
yea we're just having fun here. Nothing happened!
History Matters: Exists
James Bizanet, Rob Waterhouse and Aaron the white: ‘I’m about to fund this man’s whole career’
How dare you forget Gustave Swan
Jol and Maggie paskowski, I guess those three are the ones that stand out the most whenever he reads them for me. Oh and spinning three plates
The amuzement parkives
Moe
little holiday
this was actually suprisingly informative, as I hadnt thought about all the 'formal' ramifications of declaring war as specified by intl conventions
Bully: *punches the kid at the exit*
Director: "hey you are going to get in trouble"
UN: nah technically he didn't said it was a fight... He just punched him
Director: *:0*
Sawdawn_ Rp Director: wot
He didn't said it? Think you need to edit pow.
Lol thats what germany did againsts russia
What about beating him to a pulp?
Kid at the exit:DONT PUT FISTS TO A GUN FIGHT!!!
Answer is simple: It’s impossible to have a war without USA, China or Russia interfering in it.
They don't let anyone have fun anymore
@King Rufus the soldiers won while the generals sat back and saw the soldiers win
Or a World War without Germany taking the MVP
Or more simple nukes should be banned and makes you realize the whole world existence is a videogame
War is only comercial to the "elite".
You basicly dont realize you live in side it.
All for 1 and 1 for all is not helping for these people. Info company etc. Self help is all these people offer and then there are none. Its basicly a get well scam.
These days they declare "special military operations"
Copied
@@crwansaunt6441 who cares
and "denazification" (while completely forgetting the fact that the other side has a Jewish president)
The Afghanistan War from the US was also technically not a war, just a military operation.
@@foty8679 a military operation with thousands dead
"There is no war in ba sing se"
The king has invited you to Lake Laougi
The Culture Minister (United Nations)
well, this earned a like from me.
LAMO
Ah yes, I love when leaders of countries run to leaders of other countries and hold up a sign saying "War time!"
We sure have lost our civilized ways, we should go back to those sign holding times
:0
This should be required for all wars.
War,yo
Lets go do some war stuff.
"No dude, it's not a war if the balls dont touch"
My man!
I dont know who you are but I formally declare war on you becuase I want the likes on your comment.
And, you can't look each other in the eyes, or else it's super war.
Lol
Diwit mo pay paltak to
Fun fact about the Falklands' war: Brazil was openly neutral, but when a British bomber was forced to land in Brazil for lack of fuel, Brazil apprehended the bomber and only after some very heated discussions with Britain we turned it back, without their missiles and after a very careful inspection, lol. Years later we'd end up buying the same British frigate ships that participated there and some are still active today and we have had a fairly good relationship with UK since then, even buying the HMS Ocean recently
Cool
How we fight in the 21st century: “Stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself, stop hitting yourself”
Lol
No
Yes
this makes far too much sense for how stupid it is
It´s probably gonna end in genocide.
I think that politically, "Declaring War" also comes off as unduly hostile towards that country. Like, during the 2003 Iraq war, George W. Bush always emphasized that "our feud is not with the Iraqi people." Declaring war "on" the entire country, as opposed to just going to war against its (likely) unpopular and undemocratic government is a much easier sell both at home and to that country itself.
@@rsoldat1 that never happened
Rip to those 1 million Iraqi civilians.
To be fair, it wasn’t the fact that we entered there country that a portion of Middle East civilians dislike the US, it was the fact we overstayed our welcome. If you look at videos after Saddam was captured and killed you can see Iraqi Citizens crowding the streets with joy, hugging American and the Coalition soldiers, flags hoisted, etc. but we overstayed our welcome after the threat was defeated. I think there’s nothing wrong with staying a little bit in order to make sure no other megalomaniac tries to take power and erupt a civil war, but the fact that we waited until 2011 to get the “last” of our troops out means we overstayed our welcome.
"our feud is not with the iraqi people" ok so I guess abu ghraib was for fun then
@@hoppy5359 well some were happy about his death and others did not (including me) because they knew shit would be much worse like now
Ah, the UN. As useful as ever!
mucho mas util que la onu
@@Tomi_421 it's the same thing
@@duonsoul7996 some sectors from latin american are most useless than the main un headquarters
Tbf to the UN, the first objective is to prevent something on the scale of WW2. Yea, the smaller wars, it won't work 100% of the time but hey, at least nuclear bombs ain't flying over our heads
@@warren5037 pretty sure that has more to do with a lingering mad doctrine between the world's nuclear powers more then the un
Nowadays wars are not fought militarily, they are fought economically.
Edit: lots of people read my comment like Mormons and Ned Flanders read the bible, so quite literally. What I mean is of course there are still wars being fought with weapons, but the most powerful countries, mostly of the west prefer not to engage in wars Vietnam style or WW2, they do so by crippling other countries economies instead.
And through controlling the spread of information (and misinformation)
So true
It’s so boring
Yes and the US is the biggest bully
And culturly
As a Syrian i can tell you the answer
Because they learned how to make a nation destroys itself from the inside
i part of me feel bad about what is happening in Syria but the other part of me feel if you deserved it. history has shown foreign intervention in a civil war has never worked well for the people in the civil war, your own people accepted the foreign intervention now you are paying that price.
@@wei270 not all Syrians accepted the foreign intervention.. but sadly i admit.. if Syrians hadn't been already divided and if there hadn't been a lot of hatred within them none of this would have happened.. and the saddest part is that after 9 years that hatred still exists, actually it's worse than before💔
yes,and that's how Soviet Union failed.
@@AAlrayes13 of course it would be foreign intervention tent to prolong civil conflict, the Syrian government was close to closing out the conflict last year, then turkey came in hard again. Syrian people need to understand foreign government don't give a shit about their lives or if Syrians can't stop fighting amount them self's the on ultimately suffer the most is them self.
Anas Alrayes bro fellow syrian here from Hasakeh .. it's going down hill with our currency collapsing .. war is one thing , but economic sanctions are something only the scum of the earth would try to defend ! They affect the average working citizen way more than they affect the government the sanctions are "supposedly" targetting
UN: "So guys we introduced this thing called War crimes tribunals, so we expect from you to respect it. That means if you are in the war you must respect rules of war!"
Great powers: *"Hah, but those are not war crimes if you're not at war!"*
@Sirius Stark Al Ghul True, why the illuminatti/jews/reptilians don't create the one world government already ? smh my head
@@caiawlodarski5339 we jews are all powerful but but fear the world's popular opinion.
Seems legit
@@terner1234 It was a joke
Big brain time
@@caiawlodarski5339 I know, I was mocking the people you did
I also have to believe that due to the prevalence of total wars and the effects of the world wars, war in general is just more costly to fight when properly declared. Napoleon's "Levee en masse" and "Nation at war" was too effective and when the Prussians succeeded his system unified Germany and led to the world wars. Thus as a general rule when you declare war, you go BIG and totally mobilize. It's just not an option to not go full on to war thanks to how destructive and intensive modern industrial wars are. America's precedent of an undeclared war from Vietnam might have saved us from WW3 since you have options to de-escalate and overall can keep from a total war.
US: *Goes to war North Vietnam*
World: *hey! cant have war with North Vietnam unless you declare war!*
US: *Whats North Vietnam?*
That’s actually why there was no declaration of war from the Union in 1861. From our (and the world’s; no one ever recognized them) persepctive, the Confederacy didn’t exist.
US: North Vietnam? I've never seen this country in my life
Anirban Roy
If you say so.
@Anirban Roy
How'd they lose?
@@zenkisaragi1551 Well it sure as hell wasn't a win. In a short phrase, Vietnam was a disaster. If you'd like some details there are quite a few podcasts on it. Some of the content can be disturbing so I'd be careful delving too deeply. The images of the effects of Agent Orange is one example. We did some fucked up shit down there, and it was not a moment for Americans to ever be proud of.
Remember when the U.S department of “defence” used to be called the department of war?
32 gigs Lmao honestly has gone out of fashion
War department makes more sense, because WHAT THE FUCK does Iraq have to do with defense? It was an illegal war of aggression.
And yet Iraq was a nation that declared two different wars of aggression for the sake of conquering territory.
Iran and Kuwait.
16dublin Leif shut up commie
@@brandonlyon730 That and the fact that the supported terrorist groups throughout the Middle East.
UN: "You can't declare war!"
US: "I didn't declare it, i'm doing it."
I thought the US created the U.N.
@@SlavicUnionGaming They did and thats why they can safely ignore it
@@Tomi97_videos everyone ignores it... and they didn't create it, they just funded it. Everyone rags on the U.S., but conveniently ignore that without the U.S. throwing their weight around, WW3 would almost certainly have already happened.
The UN has no teeth. It relies on the US to enforce its rulings. You can see why the US does whatever it wants now?
ywn
I think it's also due to cultural reasons.
Before WW1, a declaration of war was seen as a show of strength.
Also, the population glorified "civilised" war, and just attacking out of the blue was looked down upon.
@Roughman What you said doesn't dispute what Daniel said.
@Roughman There is literally nothing preventing one nation from making a formal declaration of war on another which is significantly weaker/at some sort of disadvantage due to distraction, turmoil, or anything else. A few hours to a few day's (or even weeks) notice via formal "declaration" would almost never wipe out any advantage, or give any significant time to rectify any disadvantages, and if the nation you're going to war with can fix their weaknesses and put up a serious fight in just a matter of days... then going to war with them in the first place seems pretty foolish. So basically I don't think your point is valid at all.
ww2 most country don't want to declare war with german either... they need to be push to the point that other country will to sympathy and support supply and sell and send food...
Haha blitzkrieg goes brrrrrr
@Roughman You sound like a Yank.
0:07 I love how Bismarck looks so happy. It's what he wanted, anyway...
That is an awesome detail I totally missed. You really have to watch these videos twice :D
I knew I'm not alone.
Why war when you can make the country’s leaders have a MMA fight.
i feel like Russia would just dominate any physical arena like sports/fighting/dancing
@@stonecoldsteveaustin9353explains why Americans want to use guns so much 🥱😂
@@stonecoldsteveaustin9353 Putin knows karate so he would throw every other world leader onto the ground easily
Seriously speaking I guess most of the world politics is kinda MMA fight done instead of war, actual war is only when you can't negotiate about rules, but both think you could just smash opponent with your wrench anyway
@@SlavicUnionGaming judo*
Thanks for the info i really needed this video
“Hey wanna fight?”
“Sure, when and where do you wanna do it?”
“My place in 4 months, be there at 5”
@Emperor of Man *B r u h*
@Emperor of Man That's Senko the Fox. I already forgot the name of the anime but i remember it being the most popular thing while airing because wholesome
@@laxcatthesleepycat2688 I know I'm late and they removed their comment, but it's helpful fox senko-san
Cringe pfp
Short answer: too many implications that politicians don't feel like dealing with
It's also because for the most part, everyones technology is more or less equal to each others. No one would win a war, not with nuclear weapons dangling above our heads.
The politian are already too lazy to deal with it lol 😂😂😂
UA-cam recommended has a pretty sick sense of humor.
Ah yes
Lmao
Oof
lol
This did not age well…
It's not a declaration of war, it's just a special military operation!
Yeah the West in Iraq on Saddam we used that term and in Afghanistan post 9/11 even though Taleban never did it or finance it and I dislike Taleban.
So basically: “why declare war when we can just bully the smaller guys instead?”
"it's not a war if they can't fight back"
@@tommypickles218 based
Wes Gilkey what are you talking about? I just summarized what I learned from this video.
@@aoterou not really, there were way more casualties for Vietnam and for America, there was just no point in fighting and most Americans were against it so they stopped
@@aoterou More Vietnamese died than Americans so they got fucked up
Young adult: turns 19 in the 60’s
U.S Government: 1:43
So much underrated🤣🤣🤣
underrated comment
Thanks for serving 😶
Do you mean 1:28?
I’m talking about what’s on the screen, not the speaker
Why we don't declare wars anymore:
-Militaries actually follow Sun Tzu in his Art of War.
-"war has rules"
-Exterminatus via mass nuking.
Technoblade liked that
The Imperium of Man approves this comment.
If you know fighting ensures in victory, then you must fight
Sun Tzu said.
@@privateelder8871 With the use of brain, muscle comes at the end.
"If fighting will ensure in victory then you must fight sun tzu said that"
"If we don't declare war, there is no war. Just a bunch of oddly broken equipment to replace and a ton of randomly dead and injured people."
Japan: I think I will do it.. secretly.
I mean declaring war is stupid, because you give enemy some time to prepare
Lord Of Vengeance
*You’re not just wrong*
*You’re stupid*
@@dontsearchdocumentingreali9621 Well, it mean you are not respecting the War itself. I mean, suprise attack without any warning is a coward move.
@@izzfitri6888 well, it's one of the element that can guarantee a victory, so it's a smart move, becuz u r supposed to not trust ur enemy tho
@@izzfitri6888 The precursor to Pearl Harbour was the US and the League of nations imposed an oil embargo against Japan over their invasion of Manchuria. And before that Japan despite being one of the victors on WW1 did not get a cut from German reparations nor entry into the League of nations.
It's not exactly a surprise that a nation under a US imposed embargo, with a sour relationship attacked the US. Nor is it surprising that Russia, a nation that is under a US embargo over Ukraine; is accused of state sponsored cyber warfare.
I always thought the idea of declaring a war as stupid as it would basically give the other side to prepare for an attack, but hearing that it was so they could start drafting troops it makes a whole lot more sense.
That rather depends. Take a look at WWI. Fighting did not start until a couple of weeks AFTER the formal declarations of war. This is for a very good reason. The armies of the major powers were, with one exception, large conscript based forces. During peace many of their Divisions were at half or quarter strength, some even less. Those Divisions had to be filled with returning draftees, their heavy equipment pulled out of storage, checked and issued. Weapons, uniforms and supplies properly assigned, then those troops, their weapons, and their equipment have to be moved to their start up positions. When you are talking between 100 and 120 Divisions, each Division comprising of around 15,000 men plus artillery, supply train, etc etc, you start seeing why a Declaration of war was no big deal.
There is absolutely no way you can hide the fact that you are mobilising several million troops ready to fight and even with the staggering Rail infrastructure both France and Germany had at the time it took several weeks for mobilisation to be along far enough for the Plans to be initiated. Even without a formal declaration of war, because of the scale of the mobilisation, and how long it necessarily took, and of course how blindingly obvious it would be, both sides would have been ready for each other with or without a declaration.
The only exception to this was Britain, who was able to mobilise her army pretty much immediately. Problem was the BEF was *tiny*, some 4 Divisions rising to 6 by the time the fighting had actually started. This is because unlike Germany or France, Britains primary military Arm was her Navy, her Army was traditionally very small and professional. Many of the issues Britain struggled with for the first couple of years of the war can be fairly solidly linked to the fact that they had to expand their army from a small professional force of some 300 odd thousand men, to a force of 4 million in less than 2 years, and they had to do this whilst their cadre of Professionals was bleeding out at Ypres......
It led to major training issues that were not addressed until near the end of the Battle of the Somme... and was one of the reasons why the First Day of the Somme went the way it did.... Those troops were green as hell, and not fully trained..... Haig did not want to commit his army (though he was fine with maintaining a defensive posture) in an attack until 1917, however, Verdun intervened, and the British were essentially faced with the need to relieve the intense pressure the French were under at Verdun.
It's really not. Declaring a war is a powerful statement in its own right and can curtail a war before it starts. It also signifies your intentions with your allies allowing them to justify assisting you. It's a powerful diplomatic move.
@@jerm70 And we have no interest in being diplomatic anymore. We just wave our figuratively big dick around and slap smaller countries in the face with it. And any time anyone objects, we threaten to pull out of the UN... which would severely neuter it, as it has little to no power without the US. Which also means UN rules don't apply to us....
Pretty OP if you ask me.
I might be wrong but for some countries receiving a declaration of war might make them try to reach an agreement and peace deal before any violence occurs
@@senseishu937 That is certainly an option. There is no rule that says when war is declared upon someone, that they are obligated to respond in kind. But when the one whom war had been declared on asks for peace, and the other refuses and continues aggression, that risks painting them as the aggressor and pissing off allies or neighboring nations. So, while responding peacefully to a peace offer is not an obligation either,... it is a damned good idea to do so
Reasons why declaring war in the 40’s are better:
*No freaking nukes*
Unless you made them first! ;)
Well....tried.
Wait what happened to Japan then?
@@iHutch Atom bombs and Nuclear missiles are two very different things
*Oh Hi hitler i thought you sucideded long time ago how you still alive?*
J. Robert Oppenheimer has entered the chat.
20th century: war
21st century: SpEcIaL oPeRaTiOn
Declaring war formally is stupid. That ruins the surprise effect.
USA to North korea: ima do a surprise attack.
UN To USA: No, here are rules.
USA to UN: **ima do whats called a pro gamer move** doesn't declare it war but a conflict.
UN: surprised pikachu face
USA will never attack North Korea directly. They would most definitely use their nukes if they try
@@xsas8731 we had nukes the first time
Formally declaring war is even dumber when we're living in an internet economy!🧠
It is more fair for both sides if you declare it though.
United Nations: These are the rules for declared wars
Countries: I'm about to do what's called a pro gamer move
more like a: United Nations: Am I a joke to you?
@@R3stor
Yes
Fungamerplays Actually, there are no “UN rules” on the declarations of war. The declarations of war were frequent before the UN existed, because all wars, just or unjust, were equal. Now, that the UN is solely authorized to decide which war is “just”, there is no point in the official state of war
jurisprudens Well it’s bad because before at least the civilians could be warned that there is war. Now the civilians only see the bombs drop. The UN (and terrorists as they aren’t an organized military with uniforms) made geopolitics into a barbarian mess.
@@steelbear2063 *Sad South-Korean noises*
feels similar to people in pseudo relationships, that are basically relationships, but no one in the relationship says they're in a relationship, but everyone around them says they are basically in a relationship...
tbh, this is a great explanation of it
Lol
Underrated.
Hi
Basically all today's relationships
Thanks
*UN* "Ok if you want to fight there's rules"
*Whole world* "Wanna settle this outside?"
*Nods*
So what you're saying is that the only reason UN has stopped declarations of wars is by
a) Bothering people with the bureaucracy of declaring it.
b) Having people just work around their rules.
A little bit oversimplified, but yeah. Pretty much.
@@BlueV205 this enraged the UN's father, who punished him severely.
Not exactly, not one war since the UN’s foundation has escalated to the levels of death and violence sustained in the wars of the first half of the 20th century, im sure if you ask around most would prefer a Gulf War (or Desert Storm if you’re American) to a Balkan’s war
1:02 "It didn't recognize North Vietnamese independence"
Well I'm glad History Matters made them feel better by giving them Hainan province (0:54, 1:18, 1:47).
Might be trolling CCP or anything. I'm glad they did it
Well, North Vietnam was also a Soviet puppet, and South Vietnam was fighting against the French before the Indochinese Communist Party existed. The ICP/VCP was trying to wipe out non-communist rebels since the 1930's, you know.
@@DTD110865 North Vietnam wasn't a puppet state but it was reliant on the USSR (just not taking orders).
South Vietnam however ended up being a puppet state (US having a say in elections).
@@VladislavDrac
Nothing says unbias and factually accurate like knowingly introducing falsehoods for the lolz.
DTD110865 South Vietnam was not fighting against the French, they WAS a pro-French government set up i opposition to the Communist-leaning Viet Minh by France back in the 1st Indochina War, and later received support by the US in the 2nd.
1:14 As it turns out, going against the UN doesn't stop Russia from going to war.
"Why don't countries declare war formally anymore?"
Teachers who put up anti-bullying posters: 😌
*no need to thank me*
Armenia and Azerbaiyán, let us introduce ourselves
They ruin the entire video 😅
Well in that case the war technically never ended. And they both have to declare war to force their allies (Russia and Turkey respectively) hands.
I hope it doesn’t turn in ww3
Chad A lad it wont
@@thefirstprimariscatosicari6870 That bit of land actually has quite interesting history as well. Goes back several hundred years BC
Willy Tybur: *breaths heavily*
He actually did it the right way, the stage and shit was fucking lit!
-anime only, no spoilers please
@@carrillotony4872 oh you will like next episode there is a lot of surprise there
Eren Yaegar: Laughs in rumbling
@@carrillotony4872 the stage was indeed *lit*
Comment-readers, beware of spoilers!
3:10 Now they're called special operations.
2025 I'm calling it now, we're going to tweet declaration of war to each other.
Come back in less than 5 years.
Cough cough... Trump... Cough...
@@kokorochacarero8003 so you think he'll win reelection ? and btw Trump did well in avoiding war so far, he's 'started'/ joined less wars then the presidents before him so I'd say no it probably won't be him starrting them
@@crazyciler50 he could be president in 2025 if he lose in 2020, because 4 years.
It's not even going to take 5 years for that.
@@kokorochacarero8003
Irony is Trump never started any war in his presidency
"War is fun to those who had no experience of it."
- Historical quote
Is that a Call of Duty quote? Lmfao
@@BushBumperBaker no, like I said it was a historical quote and if you want the proper quote then
"War is delightful to those who had no experience of it"
-Desiderius Erasmus
@@xvii145 i dont know man looks like a cod quote
cod uses quotes all the time in 4 you got one every time you die and in the newest you even see a clip of Yuri bezmenov talking about cultural subversion which was the real war.
@@porterj9360 Never played COD so I wouldn't know and if they have a lot of similar quotes then they must be a bunch of plagiarists then. No offense to the games and all but like I said it came from Erasmus from a dutch philosopher. Do I need to eleborate more? Sigh.
Before people say this aged like milk russia technically didn't declare war they called it a military operation (which i mean really stretched declare war lol)
Bush did it twice. And then his father did it as well.
@@buddermonger2000 no formal declaration of war tho
@@fallaciousfirm2524 Yeah. Neither Bush declared war.
I love how a lot of these questions have remarkably simple answers
Incredible that the only thing the UN has accomplished in this regard is nations NOT giving a formal warning before attacking. Such a useful group.
I like how everyone has “dead inside” face.
o _ o
• _ •
:|
The “sorry we’re late” sign the Japanese diplomat is holding just kills me
Story is that Japan had declared war but they attacked before the diplomat got there
The reason was translating took too long. That was the reason why the delectation of war was late.
@@koharumi1 Delectation...... ........ ?
The 14 Part Message that was a little late was not a declaration of war. The ending simply said, "The Japanese Government regrets to have to notify hereby the American Government that in view of the attitude of the American Government it cannot but consider that it is impossible to reach an agreement through further negotiations.", which was not the explicit declaration of belligerency required by Hague III (1907), article 1, "The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."
"Unless of course, war were declared."
*siren blaring*
"What's that?"
"Peacekeeping operation were declared."
Very informative , with attention to details 👏👏
"Are you at war?"
"Well, no, but actually yes"
"just a friendly scuffle, don't mind it :) "
I think there is one important aspect of this that you missed, and that was the nature of the Cold War détente. While the USSR and the USA each felt they needed to check the other's power and expand their own influence in order to prevent their opponent from doing the same, it was of overriding and existential importance to both nations that their conflict not become openly belligerent. In the USSR's case, while it had an autocratic government and its leaders could do as they please without too much worry that the population would resist them, the basis of their foreign policy was that they were simply assisting native revolts against foreign imperialist powers. The USSR could not therefore afford to admit the full extent of its own colonial and imperialist ambitions without undermining its own success.
But the USA was even more handicapped, because it's military was in theory under the command and control of the civil leadership and the public. And in it's own wargames, whenever it played the game strictly with professional soldiers, both the Blue and Red sides of the conflict inevitably deescalated before reaching full scale nuclear. But whenever it brought real civilian leaders into the game to simulate the civilian chain of command, those same war games inevitably escalated into full scale nuclear combat. It therefore became the policy very early on in the Cold War to essentially conceal the full extent to which the USA was in direct conflict with the USSR and the full extent of the USSR's direct engagement in global conflicts, because it was afraid that if - for example - the American people came to understand that it was in fact Soviet pilots shooting down American pilots over Korea that the American people would demand a widening of the war that would eventually escalate out of control.
So not only was declaring war politically complicated in terms of both foreign policy and domestic policy, but the fear was that such declarations of war might push the conflict into an escalating cycle of wounded national pride and honor.
We saw the opposite of that when the civilian authority (Truman) sacking McArthur when he demanded to carry the Korean War into China in 1950. Its always good to have checks on power. If the Soviets ever had a premier dead set on nuclear war with the west, there was little to nothing that could stop him.
Both valid points. In addition the 'cold' part of the war allowed for increasingly wider espionage ploys while not provoking international action. Much like a giant chess game, but both sides can only see the own pieces, with occasional glimpses at the whole board. Each sides military veterans have remarked at the 'fun and frivolity' of tilting at windmills with the other; even if the outcomes were dire. I believe the Cuban Missile crisis is the best example of checks and balances during the cold war. Both sides toed the line but ultimately stayed their hands.
Might just be blowing smoke out of my ass, but you can almost see it as a result of American and Russia not really learning from the mistakes of WW1 (and WW2 if you're Germany) about excessive nationalism and national pride and honor. America never had to feel the full effects of war like Britain and France did (and maybe even seeing a lot of benefits from it on the economic side) while Russia could chalk WW1 under "the Tsar is stupid and incompetent" and see WW2 as a defense of the nation in which they succeeded through strength and nationalism.
Still though, great post mate!
@@F40PH-2CAT If the Soviets had a premier dead-set on nuclear war, the rivals in the party and military leaders would enact a coup
Great post.
The UN is that kid that got home with the soccer ball when his team was losing. At the end no one cared and just played better with a bottle.
😂😂😂😂😂 my childhood lol
@Kyle Blank lol republican
Eavy Eavy you must get invited to parties a lot.
You made me go back 10 years in time 😂
@@eavyeavy2864 you're funny
as argentinian, also in that moment we were under dictatorship so that was why war raged against britain, our"president"(dictator) was drunk so yeah
As a Russian I can understand. Shit happens
In other words, long years lasting gurrellia skirmishes are more economic then beating eachother on a field for a few months.
Pre-'Nam era: "USA has sent a duel request"
Nam and beyond: GTA V Online free roam
Those damn A10 and B-52 griefers
Yeah, with jet griefiers too
Counties: stop declaring war
2020: let's see what we can do about that.
"We will be conducting a war on terror. State funded Terror. States like Russia.... we are going to war with Russia.... But in Syria, against the Syrian government, by funding, arming, and training the ISIS cells... who aren't ISIS cells while under our protection, because we are against the terrorists."
@@shanerooney7288 Pakistan?
in order to start awar... it need more than that....
and everyone is on lockdown, going to have to postpone the war
@J R to be real all the powers are expanding tho the US are in the middle East and Venezuela. China are doing the same with Hong Kong and Tibet.
World's fucked man, heres hoping Europe stays out off the next WW we've seen enough of this shit.
I miss the times when people came out with signs to declare things like war and war support. I remember when Hitler ran through Poland with a sign saying “I’m going to be declaring war on you.” I also remember the time Hitler ran through the cold Russian weather with a sign saying “I’m going to break out truce before winter.”
this is exactly why countries don't declare war on each other! i'm so glad not a single war has broken out since then, what a peaceful world!
edit: what
😀 ukraine
2years later I am laughing at this video because this is outdated
Came here literally for a comment like this
@@karenslivesmatter2186 whoosh
yeah, well even the Russia ambassador to the UN deny that it's a "war", and instead call it a "special military exercise". It's all bullshit of course, but there is some truth to the conclusion of this video-formally declaring war is too politically unpopular, so they just avoid calling it that
Hears why no one declares war anymore: So that they don't start WW3.
They are actually fighting rn.
@@AwakeWheel-fi9tm "Minor conflicts" with an unseen force lol
AwakeWheel8856 But trade war, spies, border disputes and testing missiles are type of action just like the Cold War. It’s not like actually war on battlefield but rather economic and strategy for whose better and wanna be better.
It's actually because the right to start WW3 is reserved to Germany but it doesn't really have any kind of useful military right now. So they don't want to trigger it just yet ;)
@@derfzgrld We're kind of not allowed to start any more wars. You might want to hand that torch to Austria. They're getting pretty cozy with the wrong political parties again. We just wanna survive and get rid of the few idiots that remain that are stupid enough to act like we did nothing wrong during WWII.
Japan: Attacks unsuspecting country before actually declaring war and declares war after crippling their navy
Rest of the World: Write that down, write that down!
They actually declared war on the day of the attack. Their ambassador did not decode the message and bring it on time, allowing for the claim.
@石川俊也 They did expect retaliation. They just didn't expect that Pearl Harbor specifically would be attacked.
Or when Japan attacked North China in 1935
Or when Japan attacked North China in 1935.
Tho, actually that wasn't so unexpectable. Before attacking Pearl Harbor,USA and Japan had economic conflict,and USA had made prices on oil(if I'm not mistaken) soo low,that Japan's economic simply couldn't afford theirs expansion in the Oceania. And thus, Japan attacked
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
We stopped declaring war because we don't want the other side to see us coming
Pulled a lil sneaky on ya
Sneaking 100%
Well said
Coming
Japanese rules it is
I like how the UN effectively banned wars by bureaucratically over complicating the paperwork, but then does nothing to actually keep people from fighting. Just like how Timmy in the back seat of the car keeps poking his sister while exclaiming "I'm not touching you", and the parents actually believing his words.
The classic case of "if a law is declare, but there is no cop to enforce it, is it really a law?". But in this case, said law was declared by the civilians (super powers) who also act as the cop, who instead use to shoot first
"They're not wars, they're peacekeeping operations." - Countries to the UN
"They can't declare war because the nation they're gonna go to war with was guaranteed by a bloody democracy." - HOI4 players
Juan Matteo (takes out france before they join the allies. And releases all of their colonies so there is negative world tension.)
That's actually an interesting point. The UN itself is a belligerent "state" in some conflicts, most notably in the Congo where it has actual direct operational control over its own forces there and has gone all Master Chief on belligerent forces there, sending troops into action in an overtly aggressive and hostile manner, a war fighting manner in fact. The UN of course has no legal means to declare war, particularly so the fact that it can't go to war against itself, in this case the Dem. Rep of Congo, a member state. It would be like the US declaring war on Texas! Thus the UN terms all offensive missions it carries out directly as "peacekeeping operations". If you've ever seen the UN actually go into battle offensively they look anything but like "peacekeeping".
What stops a country from punishing terrorism with death?
No declaration of war, equals terrorism, so no POW's. Or in other words no war, no warcrimes, just special treatments for captured persons, under special circumstances.
Seems to be the perfect time for extended medical research opportunities.
Fascinating how a piece of paper can change the POV.
The lack of jurisdiction of the laws and courts of one country over foreign citizens in a foreign country stops this scenario.
As for the medical research, such practices are prohibited by dozens of international treaties that also apply during peacetime, not just the Geneva convention.
Furthermore, I believe the Geneva convention also applies to police actions and non-declared conflicts
Good question, Peter. Why would governments avoid war crimes if there was technically no war?
Because it could go both sides. You may get your captured soldiers killed.
Similarly, there's Prisoner Exchange. If you killed PoWs on sight, you now have nothing to give in return when exchanging prisoners.
maybe the fear of reciprocation, likewise soldiers don't enjoy torturing their enemy, this is reserved to an extremely small subset of the military, when the normal infantry is asked to commit large scale war crimes their morale tends to tank
You can be arrested for human rights abuses even if they happen outside war time.
USA and China: We about to end this whole worlds career.
"CNN" more loyal to CCP than the USD.
Yes with that donkey trump leading the charge
@@kevintate3752 What makes you think the situation with China would be any different if Hillary were in charge, or Biden for that matter? You're a fool to blame Trump for this regardless of what he's done. Trying to pin things like the Hong Kong protests or the Uighur camps on Trump is foolhardy and disingenuous, and a check on China needs to happen regardless of who is president of the USA.
The CCP is a bigger problem for the world than Trump, if you can believe it.
MAPLE SYRUP • 99 years ago problem is while the U.K. were definitely directly responsible, the root of those problems that they caused: Israel, African states, Saudi and Iran rivalry, Pakistan meddling, India and Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia being divided, are deeply rooted in the history of those regions. It’s a continuing legacy of those regions, perhaps except for Malaysia and Indonesia split and Israel. African tribes have always been at each other’s neck save for a few period of everyone under one rule, Shia and Sunni Muslim conflicts happened right after the Prophet’s death, the Arabs and Persians rivalry happens a few decades after that, the Indian subcontinents have been divided for centuries. Conflict is natural in those parts, the British merely adds fuel to the fire. The membership of the U.N. Security council that to me is the most problematic is the Chinese one. They are powerful, no doubt, but the U.N actually ripped that off the hand of the ROC to give it to the CCP in 1970s. It’s real politics at its best.
@@lc9245 true2
2:41 Chile was used for reconnaissance is an understatement. Chile was rival with the Argentines and they helped spy on them, basically radars in Chile allowed the British to know when, where and how many Argentine aircraft were taking off, and I believe even where they were going, this allowed excellent intercepts. It make Argentina think the British had many more aircraft then they actually because seemed to be everywhere (kinda like battle of Britain).
UN: Stop having wars!!!
Nations of the world: No, I don´t think I will...
UN: Stop declaring wars!!!
Nations of the world with their lawyers * Whisper-Whisper-Whisper *
Nations of the world: Okay.
Nations of the world brought to you by yakko Warner
Basically, a formal declaration of war has consequences for politicians, and they have decided they only want others to suffer the consequences of their actions.
UN: 《Nuclear Weapons are dangerous and have to be destroyed.》
World Powers: *Haha Nuke go brrr*