Is the indignity and loss of losing a war a small price to pay for the ensuing prosperity?

Question

Look at Japan and Germany.

Answer 1

it's not a small price to pay, but maybe it is a price worth paying?

It's interesting if you speak to Germans and Japanese people today - majority are glad they lost the war, as they now live in democractic countries.
I suppose to some extent it depends which generation you ask. Humiliation must be more severe if you are there at the tiem of surrender; but the humiliation is more abstract for later generations, and perhaps they can be more philosophical about it.

In the medium term would Russia have benefitted more by being on the losing side in 1945 I wonder?

Answer 2

Sometimes yes and sometimes no

Yes
Germany, Japan

No
Vietnam, Southern states of the USA

Now honestly if I thought America could win the Iraq war I'd say heck stay on a few more months. But this is not the case, no matter what propaganda I hear in America people in other countries know the truth, we see it on tv every single day and the only reason we're still in there is because its a bad idea to tell America that she's fighting a losing war.

America WILL NOT WIN, the only thing that will happen is more destruction the longer it draws out. There have been shorter world wars then this, its been incredibly long time and they've had more then enough time to win and get out. Now they're staying because America losing always looks bad, especailly when Bush has said that he will "win"!

First it was terrorism, then it was saddam hein whatever, now its for the good of the iraqis... what the hell is America doing. There are plenty of people out there in the world who want to be helped, why not send aid their direction?

Answer 3

Most countries that lose wars do not have "ensuing prosperity" and even Japan and Germany are not as prosperous as the would have been had they won. They would have gained control of vast amounts of the worlds resources. Wars not only result in bloodshed and human misery but destroy vast amounts of infrastructure, so even the losers are sometimes better off economically when it ends but not better off than if the war had not been fought. Hitler was a monster but ridding the world of him at the cost of 50 million lives was not efficient.

Answer 4

It all depends on what the war was about. The examples you cite are interesting - defeat for those nations meant the overthrow of a complete ideology. An ardent Nazi would have argued that defeat was a disaster - better scorched earth than prosperity without national socialism. And defeat for Britain in that same war would not have been a matter of indignity, but of enslavement and genocide. So I have to say, 'No'!

Answer 5

Yes, let's look at both Japan and Germany. Both needed massive influxes of cash and supplies, plus many many years to get back to poverty level. So, what did they "win" by "losing"? nothing. It took the US to bring them back around.

Answer 6

Never.