Millennials learning about WW2 is 'bad for mental health' - We dont know why we punch Nazis

Bongsnake McGee

kiwifarms.net
I had a few relatives that were loaded up into cattle cars and taken across the USSR from the german front to the building Eastern/Manchurian front before hitler had even shot himself.

They were forever grateful that the US dropped the bomb, and that they didn't have to fight more of the foreverwar.
 

Dr W

I have no mouth and I must scream
kiwifarms.net
Did they not already have a foothold in Korea? Hence the reason that half of Korea is communist, cuz America was already too late to step in there so they rushed to get in on whatever they could manage? I am pretty confident that the US knew that the soviets had already done some heavy espionage so I really have a tough time believing that the americans thought the russkies were ignorant of the situation.

I mean, I agree that Russia would have had a much tougher time invading Japan than the comparative ease provided by nukes, but Japan sure as fuck ain't gonna be doing any real damage to the US if they are being flooded with Soviets. It is cool if you care about the disposable troops of the soviet regime, but those were the only lives being saved here, the leaders just did not want Japan (and since you brought it up, south korea as well as north) under soviet control.
No, not really. Communist ideology had spread to North Korea at some point around that time, but the Soviets never set foot into Korea. The PROC was the one really dealing with that area, thus the whole shit about the river whose name I would misspell.

The thing is, while the Soviets might have taken Manchuria and Korea (and the Communist Bloc basically did take Manchuria and half of Korea anyway), the simple reality of the situation is that, no matter what, the Americans would be controlling mainland Japan for the simple reason that they weren't fighting a land war, and had actually geared their industry, army, navy, and air force towards amphibious or semi-amphibious operations, from Normandy to Okinawa.

The Soviets, on the other hand, did not undertake any major naval construction efforts during WWII as they didn't need a navy, and by the time the Nazis were defeated and they could entertain the prospect, the USA and Britain already had a massive advantage in materials and experience. If the entire Soviet Union did nothing but build ships, they wouldn't have had enough by November 1st to do anything major, and that's assuming they make it to Japan at all. If they did absolutely perfectly and slipped through while most of the Japanese forces were on Kyushu, they'd maybe take Hokkaido at best.

The estimates for Japanese dead during the invasion vary, but numbers in excess of 5 million are considered conservative estimates. Ten million dead outright and many more wounded is considered a reasonable expectation considering the resistance on Okinawa. The Japanese also had many kamikaze aircraft and their most advanced armored vehicles on the homeland, so Allied casualties have been estimated to be up to a million or more.
 

TitanWest

kiwifarms.net
I gotta disagree. WWII in Europe was started because of German aggression and they have no else to blame but themselves.
The Soviets invaded Romania (Bukovina), Finland (Winter War), and Poland. Why wasn't war declared on them?

Sure, France and the UK tightened the screws on Germany postWWI, but the allies continually tried to appease Hitler. The allies were so spooked about a Second World War, they were too scared to do anything when Germany gobbled up their smaller neighbors. Chamberlain tried to have peace at any cost with Germany, but they still invaded Poland, France, and Belgium anyways.
Chamberlain was revealed to have been buying time to arm up against the Germans. France declared war on Germany.

Germany’s motives were clear: Reunite the German people, conquer Europe, destroy all perceived enemies of the German state (political dissidents, Communists, Jews, Gypsies, JWs, etc), and make living space in the East. Funny how Eastern Europe is supposedly based now... Reuniting the German people wouldn’t be possible without war with France and likely the UK.
They wished to reunite the German people and had every right to do so. The Treaty of Versailles was a vicious act of vengeance that led to ethnic Germans in places like Poland being pogromed while the Allies did nothing about despite Germany's complaints. There has never been any plan to extreminate those groups uncovered. Testimonies about extermination we're revealed by US authorities to be obtained under torture.

France and UK should've renegotiated the Treaty of Versailles. Also there's plenty of evidence that the Soviets wished to invade the Germans according to Russian historian and Soviet defector Vladimir Suvorov:

 

SilkGnut

Gnuts of the Finest Silk
kiwifarms.net
No, not really. Communist ideology had spread to North Korea at some point around that time, but the Soviets never set foot into Korea. The PROC was the one really dealing with that area, thus the whole shit about the river whose name I would misspell.

The thing is, while the Soviets might have taken Manchuria and Korea (and the Communist Bloc basically did take Manchuria and half of Korea anyway), the simple reality of the situation is that, no matter what, the Americans would be controlling mainland Japan for the simple reason that they weren't fighting a land war, and had actually geared their industry, army, navy, and air force towards amphibious or semi-amphibious operations, from Normandy to Okinawa.

The Soviets, on the other hand, did not undertake any major naval construction efforts during WWII as they didn't need a navy, and by the time the Nazis were defeated and they could entertain the prospect, the USA and Britain already had a massive advantage in materials and experience. If the entire Soviet Union did nothing but build ships, they wouldn't have had enough by November 1st to do anything major, and that's assuming they make it to Japan at all. If they did absolutely perfectly and slipped through while most of the Japanese forces were on Kyushu, they'd maybe take Hokkaido at best.

The estimates for Japanese dead during the invasion vary, but numbers in excess of 5 million are considered conservative estimates. Ten million dead outright and many more wounded is considered a reasonable expectation considering the resistance on Okinawa. The Japanese also had many kamikaze aircraft and their most advanced armored vehicles on the homeland, so Allied casualties have been estimated to be up to a million or more.
Up to a million or more Americans dead seems like an estimate that makes more sense to me. The Japanese rulers really did not give two shits about their citizenry compared to their drive to keep the emperor in his seat and as far as I remember some diplomatic agreements as to that fact were an oft overlooked factor in their ultimate surrender.

Good call about the soviet navy, they would need to make a land bridge with all their dead and those tend to get bloated and putrid when mixed with water. At the same time, I still would contend that America's haste in making sure Japan surrendered did at least stop the soviets from filling in the rest of the continent. I mean there was British India but lol this ain't a couple centuries ago when that would have mattered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr W

CWCchange

ǝƃuɐɥɔƆMƆ
kiwifarms.net
So that's why weebs are always surprised when america is the bad guy in the jap cartoons.
China isn't portrayed too badly in anime... funny because Japanese in China cartoons are... yeah lol. Them jap bastards.
Meh, military powers like the U.S. and China, as well as Russia have varying portrayals in military anime when everybody is internally screwing each other, and Japan is conveniently stuck in the middle it of it to make sense for the predominant viewers (i.e. Japanese teenagers).
 

IAmNotAlpharius

For the Emperor?!
kiwifarms.net
The Soviets invaded Romania (Bukovina), Finland (Winter War), and Poland. Why wasn't war declared on them?



Chamberlain was revealed to have been buying time to arm up against the Germans. France declared war on Germany.



They wished to reunite the German people and had every right to do so. The Treaty of Versailles was a vicious act of vengeance that led to ethnic Germans in places like Poland being pogromed while the Allies did nothing about despite Germany's complaints. There has never been any plan to extreminate those groups uncovered. Testimonies about extermination we're revealed by US authorities to be obtained under torture.

France and UK should've renegotiated the Treaty of Versailles. Also there's plenty of evidence that the Soviets wished to invade the Germans according to Russian historian and Soviet defector Vladimir Suvorov:

I have heard some apologize for Chamberlain but I still think he was too weak and was often a pushover.

Germany was a greater threat to the UK’s and France’s interests than the USSR. The USSR did not share a disputed border with France. Nor did it pose the same threat to the U.K. navy/commercial shipping.

I do think the treaty of Versailles was too harsh and that the USSR was going to invade Germany eventually. However, Germany still clearly wanted to take territory from France, Poland, and make living room in the East, which would’ve involved genocide against the Slavs.
 

TitanWest

kiwifarms.net
However, Germany still clearly wanted to take territory from France, Poland, and make living room in the East, which would’ve involved genocide against the Slavs.
Germany definitely wanted parts of Poland that once belonged to the German Empire (Even the mostly Polish parts) and the ethnically German part of France taken after WWI (Alsace-Lorraine). They also wanted to send ethnic Germans out to colonize the east. But "genocide" in the sense of mass murder is hard to believe. Many Germans respected the Slavs and worked with Slav forces. The postwar "consensus" on Germany is very incestuous with spurious primary sources.
 

Uranus Pink

kiwifarms.net
However, Germany still clearly wanted to take territory from France, Poland, and make living room in the East, which would’ve involved genocide against the Slavs.
Massive swarm of butterflies flapping their wings had someone in Nazi Germany had a clue to put a cork into that operation at least until the war is over and Stalin's skull is made into a chamber pot.
 

Martys_not_smarty

You don't know what hard times are daddy.
kiwifarms.net
Up to a million or more Americans dead seems like an estimate that makes more sense to me. The Japanese rulers really did not give two shits about their citizenry compared to their drive to keep the emperor in his seat and as far as I remember some diplomatic agreements as to that fact were an oft overlooked factor in their ultimate surrender.

Good call about the soviet navy, they would need to make a land bridge with all their dead and those tend to get bloated and putrid when mixed with water. At the same time, I still would contend that America's haste in making sure Japan surrendered did at least stop the soviets from filling in the rest of the continent. I mean there was British India but lol this ain't a couple centuries ago when that would have mattered.
If you want some interesting reading you should look into Project Hula which was a joint program between the US and Soviets where Soviet naval personnel got a primer in large scale amphibious landings, in the several months it was active they managed to train about 15k officers and sailors.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SilkGnut

CaesarCzech

kiwifarms.net
Traditionally and Historically the kids of economic migrants are among the ones who have fought the hardest for this country in times of war. In WW2 the largest bulk of our fighting forces were Catholic, the vast majority of which were second or at most third generation economic migrants. Poles, Italians Irish, etc.
Those were integrated ones, more American than the Americans, more Catholic than Pope so to speak, you really think you will get the same from current crop of imigrants ?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: SilkGnut

Alec Benson Leary

Creator of Asperchu
Christorical Figure
kiwifarms.net
It's probably not a good look, talking about how the evil Germans tried to take over Europe when Germany currently runs Europe through the EU.
But Germany gets the social credit score to maintain that iron grip precisely by claiming to be the biggest victim of the nazis. Like a transwoman who pressures a cis woman into sex and then gets her banned from Twitter when she speaks about being sexually assaulted. Or actually, a better comparison is that Germany is like a male feminist ally, it makes a show of flagellating itself about the nazis so that it feels righteous in attacking everyone else about it too. Like an MFA that makes big talk about how "all men" need to change to deflect attention away from the fact that normal men don't have a trail of women with stories of them abusing women like he does. Germany is that on the scale of global politics.
 

SilkGnut

Gnuts of the Finest Silk
kiwifarms.net
That and how the Nazi had divisions of Muslim goodbois fighting in the name of Allah and the final solution.
Good tip on project Hula, I will admit that WW2 has felt less interesting to me than previous conflicts and so I have done a bit less reading on it but I always appreciate breadcrumbs.

Nobody really looks at the history of Islam, probably because if you go more than a century back nobody uses the name Islam and they act like an entirely different religion. I guess watching the empire that serves as a stronghold to your faith getting shat upon on will do that to a faith.
 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
I had to re-rate you disagree for this point right here. Germany had no chance of winning World War II once the United States and the Soviet Union both got involved. Part of why the Wehrmacht adhered so strongly to "Lightning Warfare" as their main doctrine was because they knew that they had to knock down their enemies as soon as possible before they ran out of essential supplies such as oil.

This worked up until the Battle of Britain, which halted further German advancement and the British naval blockades hurt Germany's supply lines. After Italy's failed invasion of Greece, the situation got worse and by 1941, the point of no return was reached when Germany declared war on the Soviet Union (partly to seize Russian oilfields, which led to Stalingrad) in the summer, and in December, the United States got involved, which rapidly sped up the doom of the Axis.
there’s an important lesson to be learned inWW2 that is extremely applicable today. Much of WW 2, particularly on the Axis side,was the direct result of the ever infamous “Sunk Costs Fallacy” as applied by Nations. That feeling of “we can’t pull out now we’ve spent so much in lives and treasure tothis point”, or put in modern terms “ Muh Kurd’s!”

For example in 1941 Japan was bogged down in a quagmire of a land war in China. Early easy victories were being replace by long drawn out horrifi meat grinders as the supply lines and logistics lengthened and the locals got better organized and equipped. Japan lacked the industrial resources to fully propagate that war. Instead of looking at the numbers and going home, or simply s9lidifying their gains on the Chinese coast, they doubled down. The entered into the insane gamble to seize the South China Sea resources, and tripled down by seeking to drive the US Navy out of the Western Pacific, just to be sure.At every step in the war they failed at any rational costs benefits analysis, and instead doubled down to save face and honor. By any rational count they had even achieved their needed goals in Spring 1942, and should have simply hardened their positions. But they had spent so much on this shiny new Navy, it would be dishonorable not to use it for something! “I know let’s lure the Yankee’s out to a decisive battle at Midway! “ Just because the Navy needs something to do this week.

if you look at the Japanese decision process in WW2, going back to the start in the 1930’s, We see the same bullshit decision paths that our own neo-cons and Neo-libs are so noted for.
 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
The Soviets did not have the landing craft needed in order to properly take Japan, and they would have had to fight through Manchuria and Korea first, likely losing hundreds of thousands, if not millions there as well. Then, once they make it through the storm of kamikaze aircraft, heavily defended beaches, and literally suicidal Japanese resistance down to every man, woman, and child that can hold a gun, they won. It'd probably be somewhere around 1950 by then, maybe 1947 if they went quick. But Operation Olympic was to take place Nov. 1st, 1945, so the Americans undoubtedly would've landed and probably fought their way through before the Soviets got boots on the Japanese homeland.
There is an interesting and often overlooked point regarding WW2.in that comment. During WW2 warfare changed drastically. But the changes were not yet universal. The Japanese advancements in Carrier based Naval Warfare are well documented and understood. Even the US didn’t catch up to those until 1943. But the US had an equally important evolution in warfare that was almost uniquely theirs (although executed often in partnership with the Brits and Canada). The modern Amphibious Landings were a new thing. The ability to invade with overwhelming force from the sea putting fully fleshed out mixed mechanized forces ashore against a defended coast, under support of air superiority was a new US thing. Developed for D-day and practiced to perfection across a hundred islands in the Pacific. Heck the ability to do such assaults simultaneously on opposite sides of the world. The Marines took Saipan the same week the Army took Normandy. In an equally large operation. That ability to invade from the sea was a new and extremely complex form or warfare. In 1945 only the US had the resources, experience and trained forces capable of doing it solo. The Soviets had no capabilities for an amphibious invasion of a defended coast. All of their resources experience and facilities were focused on land war. It wasn’t just a matter of not having enough ships. Heck the Soviet soldiers lucked out in that, because if they had more boats Stalin might have tried it. Which would have ended badly.

in after war interviews with Japanese Navy and Army officers, the one thing about the Americans that really shook them was the Amphibious Landings. That they never failed. The Japanese couldn’t even manage to slow them down. Contrasted with the American’s ability to disrupt Japanese landings starting in spring 1942, and turn them back from Coral Sea onwards.
 

Manwithn0n0men

kiwifarms.net
There is an interesting and often overlooked point regarding WW2.in that comment. During WW2 warfare changed drastically. But the changes were not yet universal. The Japanese advancements in Carrier based Naval Warfare are well documented and understood. Even the US didn’t catch up to those until 1943. But the US had an equally important evolution in warfare that was almost uniquely theirs (although executed often in partnership with the Brits and Canada). The modern Amphibious Landings were a new thing. The ability to invade with overwhelming force from the sea putting fully fleshed out mixed mechanized forces ashore against a defended coast, under support of air superiority was a new US thing. Developed for D-day and practiced to perfection across a hundred islands in the Pacific. Heck the ability to do such assaults simultaneously on opposite sides of the world. The Marines took Saipan the same week the Army took Normandy. In an equally large operation. That ability to invade from the sea was a new and extremely complex form or warfare. In 1945 only the US had the resources, experience and trained forces capable of doing it solo. The Soviets had no capabilities for an amphibious invasion of a defended coast. All of their resources experience and facilities were focused on land war. It wasn’t just a matter of not having enough ships. Heck the Soviet soldiers lucked out in that, because if they had more boats Stalin might have tried it. Which would have ended badly.

in after war interviews with Japanese Navy and Army officers, the one thing about the Americans that really shook them was the Amphibious Landings. That they never failed. The Japanese couldn’t even manage to slow them down. Contrasted with the American’s ability to disrupt Japanese landings starting in spring 1942, and turn them back from Coral Sea onwards.
Obligatory

 

RodgerDodger

kiwifarms.net
Obligatory

I forget who said it, but one American Officer when confronted with the USMilitary’s seeming chaotic and slightly scruffy nature compared to other nations military’s replied “if you want a Parade go hire a Marching Band”. I think the unspoken (and unread) US doctrinal belief is anyArmy that looks good on Parade has way too much time on their hands
 

JosephStalin

Vozhd
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Some thoughts from Uncle Joe re WWII.

1. Some powerlevel - have been studying WWII for about fifty years. Served over twenty years in the US military, retired as a senior officer. Retired many years ago.

2. When I read about this critter's whining, plus the sadly too many similar things coming out of England these days, cannot but conclude this England as a nation could never have stood up to Hitler after Dunkirk. Believe they would have asked for armistice terms right after the remnants of the BEF got back to England. They would have gotten their armistice. Hitler didn't have the hard-on for England that he had, say, for Poland and France. He saw the British as somewhat fellow Aryans, just misguided.

3. Anyone who has read any amount of WWII history knows that defeating the Axis was a team effort, regardless of when a member of the team entered the war. Britain was in it from day one to V-J Day. No matter how low today's England sinks, at least the Britain of WWII, just like in WWI, gave it their ALL. The USSR was deservedly savaged over the Nazi-Soviet Pact, gobbling up half of Poland and the Baltics, and attacking Finland. But it was the Red Army that chewed the guts out of the Wehrmacht. The Soviets fought battles that dwarfed just about anything the Allies did in Europe/Mediterranean until Operation Overlord. The Soviets took unimaginable casualties, losing several million men in the first year, many as prisoners. I don't even want to guess what a similar scale of casualties would have been for the USA and the UK. It was the Soviets who finally stopped the blitzkrieg literally at the gates of Moscow. Then the Germans knew they were fucked, especially when Hitler was stupid to declare war on the USA at about the same time his juggernaut got stopped by the Red Army and General Winter. And just like the United Kingdom, the Soviet people gave it their ALL, from 22 June 1941 to V-J Day.
For those who say the USA should have come into the war before it actually did, please take a look at the history of the US domestic political climate from 1 September 1939 up to Pearl Harbor. Most Americans were rather isolationist. They didn't want their boys going over to fight Europe's war, as many perceived had happened in WWI. President Roosevelt knew this. He also knew eventually things would get to the point where some type of US military action was going to happen. So he started a defense buildup, expanding the US military relatively quickly, though nothing like the 1945 US war machine. Men were drafted. Factories were built. Weapons of all types were starting to come off the lines. Many were sold to the UK, France, and certain other Allied countries. Roosevelt moved as fast as he believed the isolationists in Congress would tolerate as protection for the US/Western Hemisphere against Axis attack. Believe it or not, in the fall of 1941 a bill in Congress to keep the 1940 draftees on active duty passed by ONE vote. Just one. And this was a few months before Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, the USA went balls to the wall, and we all know the result. And we must never forget the service and sacrifice of men and women in every Allied country, especially those partially or completely occupied by Axis forces. They were part of the team and so many of them gave their ALL.

4. The atomic bombs undoubtedly saved more lives than they took, even when you factor in cancer/other illnesses in the postwar years. I would say those bombs saved the lives of the fathers and/or grandfathers of some KFers. The Allies (US/Aus/UK/NZ/India/China/Phillipines/everyone else) NEVER had an easy battle with the Japanese. Am leaving out the Soviets in Aug 45. They came hard in the attack and defended tenaciously. Yes, we never failed in an amphibious landing, but we shed one hell of a lot of blood in taking those islands. We saw at Iwo Jima and at Okinawa just what sort of defense the Japanese were going to mount in an invasion of Japan proper. It was going to be a stone bitch. Even with dropping the two atomic bombs, the Japanese surrender was more of a close-run thing than many think. There was an attempted coup by some younger officers. They wanted the discs with the Emperor's speech agreeing to surrender to the Allies so they could destroy them. There was some bloodshed. As an aside, having MacArthur in charge of Japan and keeping the Emperor as a cooperative figurehead was the smartest thing we did re occupying Japan. Far as I know there was no organized Japanese resistance to the Allies and very few individual acts of resistance. When the Emperor said "That's it, we quit", the Japanese military did as ordered. As a strange side note, in some areas, such as parts of Vietnam and Indonesia, the Allies kept certain Japanese Army units under arms and used them in maintaining order, least until French/Dutch units came from Europe.

5. Now, I'll tell you two places where we fucked up big time, in retrospect. First was the division of Korea. We were concerned about having enough troops to occupy the entire Korean Peninsula. So some bright young officers at the Pentagon, including a Colonel Dean Rusk (a future US SecState) looked at a map and divided Korea at the 38th parallel. We told the Soviets they could occupy the northern half, and we'd take the southern half. In retrospect, we should have told my namesake to stay the hell out of Korea, and backed it up by air-dropping paratroopers at key points along the Yalu River. Joe would have stayed the fuck out. This would have prevented the Korean War. The second was Vietnam. We should have immediately worked with Ho Chi Minh, more as a Vietnamese nationalist instead of a Communist, and helped him as he set up a government, etc. We should have told the French to stay the fuck out. No? Okay, no more food/other aid for you. They would have caved. Believe this would have prevented many years of warfare in Vietnam, at least as we knew it. But hindsight is 20/20.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino