ðŸ’
Did you know that during WWII, the US economy was larger than the combined economies of all the Axis powers?
Yet, Imperial Japan launched the attack on the US with the assault on Pearl Harbor, believing that the US would retreat, sue for peace, and allow them to seize the rich resources of Southeast Asia. This was the same grandiose thought that China could be conquered in three months.
What was even more grandiose was that Nazi Germany's economy was in free fall before WWII due to overaggressive rearmament, and it only survived a few more years by destructive plundering, stealing, and unsustainable conquest. By 1944-1945, total collapse and systemic ruin had occurred. The German people were starving.
So, why do aggressors believe that through destruction, there will be prosperity or that their conquests can be sustainable in ruin?
Is it logical to frighten away trading partners, customers, talent, and innovators with reckless aggression and the inevitable outcomes of ruin and damnation?
Is it reasonable for such small economies and countries, comparable to the world, to imagine total domination in global conquest?
And even if some countries were conquered during WWII, how sustainable and maintainable were those conquests?
As with Afghanistan, lessons were never learned, leading to repeated tragedies in loss of life and economic devastation.
What makes aggressors think that strength lies in the ultimate weakness of grandiose conquests rooted in ignorance and deluded cunning, leading to self-destruction?
And what causes good men to do nothing as abusive and unholy acts occur, destroying real prosperity, peace, and salvation?
🕊