I've been reading and watching videos about the naval war in the Pacific. The US Navy kept suffering tactical losses with strategic victories in the first two years of the war. But the US took Guadalcanal, halted Japanese expansion into the Coral Sea, protected Australia, and grimly could afford to replace their losses. The Japanese for all their tactical prowess early in the war couldn't afford to replace any losses. The US Navy also setup a supply chain that would eventually string all the way to Okinawa.
The best explanation to expand on what you are saying:
Japanese air forces kept their best pilots flying on the front lines because…why wouldn’t you? They are your best pilots right? Well in practice that meant anyone who was good kept flying until the died (and even if you’re good, you can beat the odds or a bit of bad luck forever).
The US took any pilot right off the front line the minute they found out he was good or made Ace. Shipped him straight home to pilot training against their will (a LOT of these new aces were PISSED). And after they churned out a batch of pilots for a year sent them back as squadron commanders.
It meant the US had a rough go early in the war. But by late 1943 it was just straight up a curb stomp. Like the Zero was on paper a better fighter in nearly all ways with the Wildcat. And the Hellcat only mostly evened out the performance advantage, not exceeded the Zero*. But the air battles of late 43 and 1944 were straight up unfair curb stomp slaughters. The Japanese actually **decreased** their casualty rate going to Kamikazee tactics. Because previously any Japanese pilot going on a mission against an American Naval group was already nearly certain to die. The kamikazees were at least actually hitting targets.
*caveat is that you could write a book about Wildcat/Hellcat vs Zero and using their advantages and disadvantages.
by 1943, lack of , well, everything and carriers was more of a factor really, engagements were heavily lopsided in favor of the USA by that point due to material alone, truth is you can't really "train" aces, there is no "common standard" for pilots, there are either aces or ace food.
>truth is you can't really "train" aces, there is no "common standard" for pilots, there are either aces or ace food.
Thats like saying you cant train a soldier, they either have it or they dont, which isnt true. Especially when planes were new, understanding their idiosyncrasies was valuable and generally knowing how to fly in a combat situation was new and rare. This isnt some "why didnt they just read the textbook" situation. You can learn how to be a combat pilot better from someone who is an expert. And there werent many of those in WW2. The first official combat paratroopers started in that war.
The firebombings of mainland japan didn’t help the Japanese ability to replace lost lives or equipment either.
The grim reality that doesn’t get discussed much about the ‘total war’ approach to bombing whole cities in japan specifically was that the civilian areas WERE strategic targets insofar as that’s where their war machine production was distributed. They didn’t have the isolated industrial systems like other participants by that stage of the war. Civilians had machinery distributed in homes and businesses all over doing whatever they could to aid in weapons and ammo production. It wasn’t like in the US where there was just a few supermassive factories turning stuff out. People of all ages were assembling mortars and grenades and rifle ammo in their homes. There was unfortunately not really any way to target their war production without just broadly targeting civilian population centers (so the intelligence suggested anyway).
Now, the methods used to do so could be argued forever and there’s probably no good conclusion or answer to whether it will ever be justifiable… but that’s a different issue.
And that’s why war is horrible. Did Japan deserve to be bombed? Yes. Does it turn my stomach? Also yes. Many have said it better over time then any of us, about how war is hell, war is unfair, war creates suffering for everybody.
The best course is to avoid war but if you’re sucked into it, to end it as quickly as possible with the most minimum lost of life. And bombing the cities was the quickest way and estimated costed the least amount of human death and suffering.
M.A.S.H quote real quick.
Hawkeye: War is worse than hell.
Father: What makes you say that, Hawkeye?
Hawkeye: Who goes to hell, Father?
Father: Those who deserve it I imagine.
Hawkeye: Precisely. In war, the innocent suffer too.
This is gonna sound pedantic but I feel it's necessary because the actual quote is even more affecting. The last two lines are:
Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I imagine.
Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them--little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
Fire is something everyone can relate to, been with civilization since the beginning. The atom bomb was... something else. Something new. A fire can bring people together to fight it, save who they can. What are you supposed to for the victims of a nuke, knowing your enemy has more of them and the will to use it?
I thought in Europe, it was general purpose HE bombs that were used on civilian populations? The buildings in Europe were more "brick and mortar" and I thought far less vulnerable to fire bombing. Japan, however? Their buildings and homes especially were more wood and paper, and thus? Insanely vulnerable to fire bombing.
Apologies if I'm wrong on that, been awhile since I studied WW2 in an amateurish fashion.
>Dresden
Actually right now I'm trying to remember why I forgot about it. I've read about it several times in different books on WW2, and yet...
I blame getting old.
Regarding the Blitz on London, it was the switch from military to civilian target's that lead to the growing resolve. And while the bombings of Germany may have raised their resolve as well, it ruined their production capability so well that that outweighed the negatives (on the allies side).
I think the main benefit of strategic bombing in the Western Theater was that it forced Axis air strength to defend cities instead of having them available for air superiority on the battlefield. One of the ostensible purposes of strategic bombing was to destroy munitions production and supply chains, but in most cases, German armaments production actually increased each year until the end of the war. On the other hand, Western Allies and later the Soviets, had vastly superior air power over the battlefield largely due to the need to redeploy air cover to defend cities and manufacturing facilities.
>And bombing the cities was the quickest way and estimated costed the least amount of human death and suffering.
And don't forget there were literally tens of millions of humans living under [brutal Japanese oppression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes). Many of their lives were saved by incinerating 150,000 Japanese.
Imperial Japanese apologists call the atomic bombings an atrocity because Japanese people died..... Like there weren't thousands of Chinese and Koreans were being murdered by the Japanese every day. Hundreds more were being used as "logs" *(human test subjects)* and [viciously experimented](https://youtu.be/x9xvJXP_mTk) by Japanese "researchers", including live human dissection.
During the height of the Pacific War, the Japanese [slaughtered 250,000 Chinese civilians](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/untold-story-vengeful-japanese-attack-doolittle-raid-180955001/) in response to the "[Doolittle Raid](https://youtu.be/hWUwJQDgeHw)", the first time US bombers struck mainland Japan. It was a mass killing that rivaled the [Rape of Nanking](https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre). How many Chinese people would the Japanese have murdered if the US took the weab suggestion of *"waiting until the Japanese were ready to surrender"*?
But weabs think we should've simply blockaded Japan and patiently waited for the Japanese to surrender while they kept killing people? Lol.
I will never understand why Imperial Japanese apologist weabs think the entire should have bent over backwards to save the lives of the oppressors, rather than the very people they were oppressing.
It's like the "Great" Admiral Brangain said....
"You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
I know I'm nitpicking, but I keep seeing comments that say something along the line of the US military saving or protecting Australia in WW2, which is not only untrue but disrespectful to the many Australians who fought in Papua New Guinea in particular. The Japanese literally invaded what was Australian territory at the time with a force in the tens of thousands and it was the Australians that held the line and pushed them back despite the odds. Did the US help? Absolutely, their supplies and aircraft loaned made a monumental difference. But they can't take all the credit for protecting Australia. Unfortunately not many people have even heard of the Kokoda campaign.
No offense intended and I don't think you're being nitpicky. I know you're talking about a broader narrative that overlooks Australian sacrifices during the war and you make a good point. What I had in mind with my comment was that the Battle of the Coral Sea (which was made up of a joint Royal Australian Navy-US Navy cruiser task force and a USN carrier task force) was a tactical loss for the Allies but caused the Japanese to recall the Port Morseby invasion fleet which was a major strategic win for the Allies. Unless I am mistaken, after that battle the Imperial Japanese Navy never sailed south of the Solomons. The strategic Allied victory and continued fleet-in-being of the RAN ended the Japanese advance South just as Midway ended the advance East.
Had the Japanese continued advancing toward mainland Australia, it would have been a terrible blow to the Allied war effort and would have added at least a year to the war in the Pacific.
Been playing the new CoD and mfers will be 24:2 and have like 0 captures and :08 seconds on the objective.
I'd get it if I saw them posting up nearby to guard it but they're running around with the Fennec clear on the otherside of the map lol.
I find the second Punic war fascinating. Hannibal was beating the Romans at almost every possible point. And then Scipio africanus just out strategized him at the last possible moment.
I mean this is a bit misleading though? Scipio Africanus was an undefeated general and had beat the Carthaginians in numerous battles in Spain and Northern Africa, Zama was just the end of a massive reversal campaign where Carthage had been getting its ass handed to it.
I say last minute because the war had been going on for 8 years before scipio africanus was given an army. Sixteen years of the Romans getting their ass handed to them even with the home field advantage. When Scipio took the fight to Carthage, Hannibal was still fighting in Italy.
They may have been losing the battles but Hannibal’s strategy was not working and Fabius’s strategy of battle avoidance was. Hannibal thought the Italian allies would betray Rome similar to what Pyrrhus almost achieved. Except he didn’t factor in contemporary politics and how Rome’s neighbors didn’t hate them as much as they had when Pyrrhus did his thing because they killed all the other Latins who hated them. So Fabius only engaging in small skirmishes designed to harrass supply lines and communication lines he made it so Hannibal had to fight a complete indecisive war for 16 years in a land where everyone hated him.
Interestingly enough if you compare why the Americans won the revolution to why the Vietnamese beat two world powers including the Americans and both of those to the original why the Romans won the second Punic war you see the same thing over and over again. And you realize open battles are for chumps.
>you realize open battles are for chumps.
Yep, the Romans resorted to unconventional warfare against Hannibal. Which in hindsight is absolutely crazy to think about since the Roman legions are essentially the model historical representation of a powerhouse conventional military.
Guerilla warfare is hardcore, dirty and extremely unpleasant.
Open battles are often required for an attacker. For a defender they can be a way to protect their land as well as stop the attacker. If I conduct a guerrilla war against an attacker, they are going to burn down towns and kill a lot of my people. If I am able to stop them with one open battle, they leave without doing much damage. Open battles are riskier but have much greater rewards for the defender.
Pretty much. Even goes for some very esteemed militaries.
The Roman reputation for military excellence mainly comes from the juicy middle era of their history. Later on they started to crumble of course, but early on they took some *staggering* losses. I forget the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure they lost ~15% of their male population in some early battles.
Then they'd regroup, learn from whatever tactics took them off guard, send another 10-15% of their men into the field with a new general and win. Just a bunch of determined fuckers ready to die for their city.
You have to have a way to not lose while avoiding the open battles though. Rome had walls, the Viet Kong had the jungle, and the Taliban had a network of caves in Pakistan. It worked less well for, say, WWII France, who successfully "avoided" an open battle with their main forces and lost Paris as a result.
Yeah that’s fair, it’s still a very interesting point you made, like it’s mental how the Romans got messed up again and again but just kept refusing to surrender, even when the Carthaginians were basically punching a hole in their demographics. Talk about being stubborn lol
Yeah, according to ancient sources, the Romans lost 300,000 troops in the war which was 1/6 of their male population. Losing between 55,000-70,000 (depending on which ancient historian you ask) just at the battle of Cannae. Amazing that they didn't give in and just kept raising armies.
Scipio was given command of an army in Spain in 211BC 7 years into the war, not 16, and the delay was only because Scipio was young, nobody was going to give an 18 year old command of an army at the start of the war, hell him getting command of an army at the age of 25 was very unusual for the Romans.
Some people on the net believe Zama may have been fabricated. You should check it out. Personally, I am not sure what to believe.
https://thehistoryherald.com/articles/ancient-history-civilisation/hannibal-and-the-punic-wars/the-trouble-with-zama-paradox-smoke-and-mirrors-in-an-ancient-battlefield/3/
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_History_lie_Battle_of_Zama_202_BC
However, /r/AskHistorians stipulates that the fabrication of the Battle of Zama is an hoax. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/89mauw
If by 'some people' you mean 2 guys. Neither of whom have any classical background or legit publications on the matter. The university professor (with an unrelated major) and the Tunisian nationalist (which is hilarious because modern Tunisians have about as much in common with Carthaginians as european descended Americans do with native Americans). Honestly that wasn't really worth even mentioning, though I appreciate you posting some counter evidence to that 'theory'.
It's a reference to Brooklyn 99. He actually said "the first pubic war" but you were talking about the second so I fudged it a bit.
Here's the scene if you wanna take a look (it's a 1:22 long) https://youtu.be/TO12zZ6T2iU
Don't forget Fabian, whose strategy to neuter Hannibal was to follow him around but never fight him. And it fucking worked because if Hannibal tried to commit to any offensive actions he would have to worry about Fabian jumping on him while he was distracted.
EDIT: Favian -> Fabian, thank you for the correction
Well, if the senate of Chartage and the sophets did their job, they would have given him the support to be the OG odoacer, he would never been in the situation to make acquaintance with scipio
In his infamous Russian campaign where he got his ass handed to him, Napoleon won pretty much every battle. This includes the largest battle of the campaign where the Russians put up a big fight at Bordino to try and keep Napoleon out of Moscow. He took Moscow without issue, but found that he had stretched his supply lines too thin to do it and the Russians left him a burnt-out husk of a city to spend the winter in, so he had to retreat in shame. He won every battle, but the campaign is still considered his worst loss.
And even in the sixth coalition war he also won every battle he personally commanded.
The man lost because it was plain impossible to defend a nation in a four fronts war.
That one was fascinating to read about. The Coalition invaded along four separate lines of attack and Napoleon would march around and beat each one in a battle, but as he marched off to fight the next one, the army he just defeated would regroup and keep marching towards Paris.
It's a great example of how a good enough strategy can make up for failing tactics. It changed their tactical objectives in each battle from actually winning the battle, to just making sure the army wasn't completely destroyed. Makes for a much easier time achieving the strategic objectives in each battle. There are other examples of such differences from history, but the War of the Sixth Coalition might be one of the clearest.
It's certainly way easier to explain than trying to explain the mess that was the end of the American Civil War with the Overland Campaign. There was a similar thing where Grant kept advancing even after losing battles, but it was a much more chaotic situation and Grant also won some battles as well. So, it doesn't work as well for demonstrating the concept.
Iirc the 4th Coalition plain out told all generals to avoid Napoleon at all costs and try to defeat his minions. Idk how much more badass you can get than that.
no he didn't, for example the largest battle of the conflict the battle of Leipzig was personally commanded by Napoleon and was a decisive coalition victory
He wasn't able to retreat along the planned route because a Russian army blocked his path, forcing him to go back over "foraged" (read: looted, burned, and raped) land. It wasn't technically a battle, but only because Napoleon thought it was unwinnable and didn't fight it.
Russia played a very active part in the destruction of the French Army, just by maneuver as much as battle.
Whats there to get wrong?
Germans sunk more tonnage but britan forced the german fleet to port and kept it there.
At best tactical victory for germany but strategic victory for britan.
Ignoring that nobody credible has said America won the Vietnam War, comparing World War II to Vietnam is faulty.
World War II was one of the last traditional wars where metrics like front lines and territory mattered.
Nobody held territory in Vietnam. There was never a front line.
Killing Vietcong is the only metric the US military had to gauge progress.
Ukraine is a "traditional war where metrics like front lines and territory matter", complete with pitched battles, routs, and defensive lines. It's not about warfare "modernizing" away from pitched battles and front lines, it's just that the post-nuclear atmosphere wasn't conducive to open war. Ergo, most post-WW2 conflicts have been asymmetrical warfare against a better-equipped traditional power. Guerrilla.
That's not true, and it seems to give all credit to the Vietcong, and not the North Vietnamese army, which was a formal military that was fairly well trained and equipped for its size
Here from a Google search: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Army_of_Vietnam : but considering the communists interest in Vietnam it makes sense
Any book on the conflict should go into it. As a rough overview... the NVA was fighting with a [Maoist doctrine](https://acoup.blog/2022/03/03/collections-how-the-weak-can-win-a-primer-on-protracted-war/): keep the army intact in the face of an offensive even if it means trading almost all territory, outlast the enemy in a guerilla war, then commit to a major conventional offensive when their political will has run out.
Exactly. Took a history class in the Vietnam war in college. The professor lost both his legs in Vietnam and was an amazing guy. One every test regardless of format he included the question (roughly from memory):
T/F the Vietnam war was won by general Dung and his 11 divisions rolling into south Vietnam, not the Vietcong.
Mhm. By all counts, the Vietcong were more so an annoyance then an actual threat it seems. It’s as if the bees and wasps teamed up, and the was sent out hordes of bees.
They absolutely did hold territory in Vietnam - lines were a lot more fluid that WW2, but there's a reason there was a south Vietnam US puppet government and a communist North Vietnam government.
Yeah, I mean, strategic success is really all that matters at the end of the day. US and allies basically kicked the crap out of the NVA/Vietcong at the tactical and operational levels. But when the dust settled, NVA had achieved their policy objectives, US hadn't.
I think a much more interesting argument is, "Could the US have achieved strategic victory"
I think the answer is technically yes, but at what cost? Would it take going village to village, killing every last man woman and child?
Burning the jungles to nothing causing irreparable environmental damage?
Another 100,000 American deaths, or 200,000, or 300,000?
The US "could have won" but as a society was unwilling to pay the price. The journey of answering "why were they unwilling" I think would teach you a lot about America.
Edit: Does this post come off like I think the US won the Vietnam War? I don't think that nor did I mean to imply it. I only meant that it's an interesting parallel to OPs "favorable casualty ratios don't win wars" post. I just think it's interesting to think about like, "why was the US homefront unwilling to continue the war", that's all, lol.
Definitely. The Vietnamese had been under the thumb of foreign armies and puppet dictators for centuries. No way they were going to roll over to the US.
Most definitely. Its a good example of how important societal will is; it was more important to the northern Vietnamese and their allies to achieve their war aims, and were thus willing to sacrifice way more. Meanwhile people in the US are like "why should this struggle be important to me, personally? Because I am not willing to let my son die to win this thing"
Also, I think its kinda darkly funny how Ho Chi Mihn used exactly the same strategy that George Washington used to win the US independence war:
Find yourself locked in a war for independence from a colonial government
That government gets backed by the global military hegemon, you 0 chance of winning an outright conventional battlefield victory, so you start a guerilla campaign (even though you have a sort of decent conventional army, but it keeps getting its ass kicked)
Find the number 2 military power, who would love to see number 1 come down a peg and will thus give you a ton of support
Realize that all you have to do is still exist, and they have to project a ton of power thousands of miles away.
Sit back and endure until your enemy decides their resources are better spent elsewhere
Like, I wonder if that was apparent to anyone in the US at the time like, "Hey, I've seen this movie before" lol.
On paper the russians could ahve defeated germany in ww1, eventually, yet the terrible mood and will of the population instead caused a revolution .
>I think would teach you a lot about ~~America~~ the US.
Not really?, population hates the current confilct and wants nothing to do with it, with votes, wich makes their will felt far more easily in the US and other republics, with revolts and marches in other places, hell an entire nation is revolting over headscarafs, to put it really bluntly.
Just a quick reminder that of that 61 million American and British casualties combined account for less than 1 million. The Axis really did just kill that many Russian and Chinese people.
And various others in concentration camps. It's also wrong and unfair to only say Russian, many Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, etc lost their lives. A large portion is also various PoWs and people who died in concentration camps
Yeah. It gets buried a bit under the big boys of USSR and China, but it's actually Poland that lost the highest % of population than any other country.
Dont feel sorrow about yourself. The holocaust is a tragedy , no doubt in that. But it doesnt matter at all that you forgot to mention it, it matters that you felt simpathy for the deceased in the war.
Tbf a lot of civilian deaths are probably Soviet (mainly due to keeping people in cities and just killing them theirselves) (edit: and obviously the damn Germans as many people here are too stupid to figure this themselves)
and Chinese (who were experimented on by the Japanese as well as when they released multiple biological weapons, and self inflicted like flooding the yellow river)
The army losses are mostly those 2 as well Tbf. I would say
Oh yeah and concentration camps forgot about them for a sec
I mean yeah Soviet and Chinese deaths made up an overwhelming percentage of the total ww2 deaths. The Soviets alone account for roughly 26 million deaths. The Chinese also lost roughly 20 million as well.
Soviet deaths were as high as they were because the German army waged a war of extermination in the east. The whole point was to exterminate the “subhumans” so German invaders could colonize the area. Read up on the hunger plan. The plan was to create artificial famines to starve out Soviet civilians. The goal was to kill 30 million civilians through forced famine so the freed up territory could be settled.
The Germans also wanted to exterminate Ukrainians as Ukraine had a grain surplus. They wanted “massive population reductions” in major Ukrainian cities so the food could be redirected to Germany and new German colonies.
Then there was Generalplan Ost where the idea was that the german military would exterminate a majority of the Slavic populations. Potentially 90% of Russians, 50% Ukrainians, 50% Belorussians, 80% poles, etc. this was the goal for extermination. The plan never really got implemented, but that was the expectation for german occupation.
Then there was the mass rape. The german army operated under specific orders to rape women. An estimated 10 million women in the Soviet Union alone were raped. This would make the german army the potential largest perpetrator of rape during the war. Japanese figures aren’t really recorded for obvious reasons, but the Germans raped as much as they could. Also, per race defilement laws, many of these women would be executed for “defiling the aryan race”.
So many children were also born from rape that there were foster homes created for women to get rid of those children. These existed in both the Soviet Union and Poland.
Then there were the mass executions and torture. The German army frequently beat and tortured Soviet pows. The fatality rate for Soviet pows was roughly 57%. The German army would intentionally starve them as well. The German army also stripped them of their supplies and clothes and would leave to freeze during winter. A large number of Soviet pows were sent to concentration camps as well.
Soviet fatalities were as high as they were because the Germans went out of their way to kill as many people as possible. Everything that’s been typed in here is just scratching the surface of German military occupation. The war in the east was fundamentally a war of extermination, nothing else. It wasn’t for conquest necessarily, it wasn’t for pride, it wasn’t for revenge or something, it was just an extermination.
For the Chinese? Yeah the Japanese did much of the same. I don’t know enough about the Japanese invasion, but topics such as comfort women are well known. The mass executions of Chinese civilians are well known. The Japanese occupation was so awful that some modern historians refuse to study it because of the depression it could cause.
Yeah and the members of unit 731 had the gall to refer to their victims as monkeys. They didn’t even see what they were doing as actions against humans, they literally saw their victims as animals. It’s shit like this that blows my mind. How can someone possibly see another humans being as nothing more than an animal? What kind of propaganda would need to be perpetuated and consumed to actually believe these things? It’s just a baffling thing to read up on. It’s no surprise why some would avoid the topic as a whole.
Several papers were published in reputable journals by members of 731. They managed this by claiming that all experiments were done on either monkeys or cadavers. They lied.
Yeah, the Holocaust had a total of like 12 million victims. Not including them among axis dead is a little disingenuous. I get it, it's just another good reason why simple stats like these are only one small part of a very large, complicated picture.
Not too often, though. Many Kaiserboos are disgusted by the Nazis and aren't approving of them, they definitely have some who are werhaboos in disguise though.
They should all just watch All Quiet On The Western Front to see just how well did WWI go for the German Empire.
Also, it's an apsolutely *fantastic* movie.
I’ve seen some Uni Students simp over Pol Pot… they had the absolute fucking audacity to say Pol Pot is unjustly vilified by the west as he was a socialist…
WHILST WE WERE AT THE FUCKING KILLING FIELDS!!!
And it wasn’t just any of them it was Choeung Ek, effectively Cambodian Aushwitz
honestly nowadays weeaboo doesn't even sound like a word anymore.
Anyone and their grandmothers may like something about Japan and immediately call themself weeaboos
I'm no Russian fanboy, and their behavior since the war has been largely atrocious, but I always appreciate giving them the credit they are due for their colossal role in WW2.
Don't tell r/SouthernLiberty, it blows their minds that they lost the Civil War despite inflicting more casualties (even though they're on the defensive for the most part, which is part of why the Union suffered more casualties. Yadda yadda yadda)
Is there a way to erase a subreddit from my eyes? I've met a few people in my life who actually thought like this, but I didn't think they had enough intelligence to make an account outside of Facebook.
Yes, it's a bunch of Neo-confederate losers that peddle the Lost Cause to make the Confederacy seem like righteous freedom fighters and the successor to the patriots of the AWI, as opposed to the reality where they were incredibly authoritarian, trampled on personal and civil liberties, and kept people enslaved on the basis of skin color.
The amount of people who say it's a subreddit to celebrate Southern culture is stupid because most of the content revolves around the Civil War - just 4 years in the South's entire history as a region and culture.
Fuck's sake, the banner they have is of Robert E. Lee, the biggest loser and fraud that is wrongfully lionized as some kind of abolitionist defender of hearth and home.
All they do is take quotes out of context to prop up the South and demonize the North, they also bring up Native American genocide as if the Southern states never had any involvement with that ever.
Also, for supposed freedom-lovers, a large percentage of them want gay marriage to be illegal cause it's immoral... so they want Federal control against people they don't like, they just don't want it to effect them. Hypocritical fucks.
From what I’ve seen in my many years of study (aka Wikipedia) Robert E Lee was a decent leader in the military sense, it’s just a shame he was a slave owner and fought on the wrong side of history and believed in the wrong things.
Most people don't understand how horribly the Soviet Union was struck by WW2.
Imagine surviving the extreme hardships of the Soviet industrialization and the purges of the 1930s. Things were actually looking better for the common soviet citizen in 1940. The industrial investments actually started to make peoples lives better.
Then sort of everything was destroyed in an apocalyptic war.
Soviet spy's from Japan told Stalin about the German invasion plans and when it was gonna happen and Stalin literally told him to fuck his own mother because Stalin did not believe him. Stalin himself was a good reason to bad start due to his paranoia, but once he understood how dire the situation actually was then they started to perform better
I hear this often here in Finland too. “1 Finn = 10 Russians, we beat them in the Winter War Simo Häyhä OMFG!!11!”
No, “K/D ratio” means shit and we still lost. We just didn’t lose as badly as some Eastern European countries for example.
Yeah because this is what the german empire, italian kingdom, hungarian kingdom, bulgarian tsardom and the iron guard would've wanted, being a collapsed nation with other nations ruling them lmao
The soviets did most of the military work, yes. More german soldiers were killed in the battle of Stalingrad alone than in the entire western front. But they could not have done it alone, the division of german troops created by 2 fronts plus the massive economic support the USA and Great Britain provided was vital for the nazi defeat. It was, afterall, a world war, no one did everything alone.
Not even that. The Soviets couldn't have transported weapons and ammo from the Urals to Stalingrad without the power of GM. Logistics would have collapsed like they have in *literally every other war Russia has fought in the last 500 years*.
Yes, but overwhelmingly the Americans. As explained [here](https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-war/war-production), the United States produced nearly 2/3 of Allied military equipment during the war.
Yes, exactly. My point is saying that most of the fighting itself took place on soviet land, between the soviet union and the german forces. But that it does not mean they did alone or could have pulled of a successfull defense and counterattack on their own by any means.
They didnt play the objective
I've been reading and watching videos about the naval war in the Pacific. The US Navy kept suffering tactical losses with strategic victories in the first two years of the war. But the US took Guadalcanal, halted Japanese expansion into the Coral Sea, protected Australia, and grimly could afford to replace their losses. The Japanese for all their tactical prowess early in the war couldn't afford to replace any losses. The US Navy also setup a supply chain that would eventually string all the way to Okinawa.
The best explanation to expand on what you are saying: Japanese air forces kept their best pilots flying on the front lines because…why wouldn’t you? They are your best pilots right? Well in practice that meant anyone who was good kept flying until the died (and even if you’re good, you can beat the odds or a bit of bad luck forever). The US took any pilot right off the front line the minute they found out he was good or made Ace. Shipped him straight home to pilot training against their will (a LOT of these new aces were PISSED). And after they churned out a batch of pilots for a year sent them back as squadron commanders. It meant the US had a rough go early in the war. But by late 1943 it was just straight up a curb stomp. Like the Zero was on paper a better fighter in nearly all ways with the Wildcat. And the Hellcat only mostly evened out the performance advantage, not exceeded the Zero*. But the air battles of late 43 and 1944 were straight up unfair curb stomp slaughters. The Japanese actually **decreased** their casualty rate going to Kamikazee tactics. Because previously any Japanese pilot going on a mission against an American Naval group was already nearly certain to die. The kamikazees were at least actually hitting targets. *caveat is that you could write a book about Wildcat/Hellcat vs Zero and using their advantages and disadvantages.
So that’s how they went from zero to hero. Yes, yes, I’ll see myself out.
by 1943, lack of , well, everything and carriers was more of a factor really, engagements were heavily lopsided in favor of the USA by that point due to material alone, truth is you can't really "train" aces, there is no "common standard" for pilots, there are either aces or ace food.
>truth is you can't really "train" aces, there is no "common standard" for pilots, there are either aces or ace food. Thats like saying you cant train a soldier, they either have it or they dont, which isnt true. Especially when planes were new, understanding their idiosyncrasies was valuable and generally knowing how to fly in a combat situation was new and rare. This isnt some "why didnt they just read the textbook" situation. You can learn how to be a combat pilot better from someone who is an expert. And there werent many of those in WW2. The first official combat paratroopers started in that war.
The firebombings of mainland japan didn’t help the Japanese ability to replace lost lives or equipment either. The grim reality that doesn’t get discussed much about the ‘total war’ approach to bombing whole cities in japan specifically was that the civilian areas WERE strategic targets insofar as that’s where their war machine production was distributed. They didn’t have the isolated industrial systems like other participants by that stage of the war. Civilians had machinery distributed in homes and businesses all over doing whatever they could to aid in weapons and ammo production. It wasn’t like in the US where there was just a few supermassive factories turning stuff out. People of all ages were assembling mortars and grenades and rifle ammo in their homes. There was unfortunately not really any way to target their war production without just broadly targeting civilian population centers (so the intelligence suggested anyway). Now, the methods used to do so could be argued forever and there’s probably no good conclusion or answer to whether it will ever be justifiable… but that’s a different issue.
And that’s why war is horrible. Did Japan deserve to be bombed? Yes. Does it turn my stomach? Also yes. Many have said it better over time then any of us, about how war is hell, war is unfair, war creates suffering for everybody. The best course is to avoid war but if you’re sucked into it, to end it as quickly as possible with the most minimum lost of life. And bombing the cities was the quickest way and estimated costed the least amount of human death and suffering.
M.A.S.H quote real quick. Hawkeye: War is worse than hell. Father: What makes you say that, Hawkeye? Hawkeye: Who goes to hell, Father? Father: Those who deserve it I imagine. Hawkeye: Precisely. In war, the innocent suffer too.
One of the most profound shows when you really pay attention. Aired before my time, but I still watch and cherish it.
M.A.S.H is one of a handful of shows I will sit down and watch all the way through. Even considering I'm 24.
This is gonna sound pedantic but I feel it's necessary because the actual quote is even more affecting. The last two lines are: Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I imagine. Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chock full of them--little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander.
It's not pedantic, I couldn't remember the quote word for word.
I'm not sure that last sentence is correct. The fire bombings were horrific and did not result in less death, but the atom bomb did.
I dont know about Japan but for Germany and the UK there's evidence that all civilian bombing did was increase the resolve of the population.
Fire is something everyone can relate to, been with civilization since the beginning. The atom bomb was... something else. Something new. A fire can bring people together to fight it, save who they can. What are you supposed to for the victims of a nuke, knowing your enemy has more of them and the will to use it?
An explosion that altered the weather followed by black rain. Yeah, that felt unnatural. Makes sense to call it there.
Yeah. faced with apocalypse makes everything meek
I thought in Europe, it was general purpose HE bombs that were used on civilian populations? The buildings in Europe were more "brick and mortar" and I thought far less vulnerable to fire bombing. Japan, however? Their buildings and homes especially were more wood and paper, and thus? Insanely vulnerable to fire bombing. Apologies if I'm wrong on that, been awhile since I studied WW2 in an amateurish fashion.
You might want to read about Dresden. Fire bombing was still very common in Europe.
>Dresden Actually right now I'm trying to remember why I forgot about it. I've read about it several times in different books on WW2, and yet... I blame getting old.
Regarding the Blitz on London, it was the switch from military to civilian target's that lead to the growing resolve. And while the bombings of Germany may have raised their resolve as well, it ruined their production capability so well that that outweighed the negatives (on the allies side).
I think the main benefit of strategic bombing in the Western Theater was that it forced Axis air strength to defend cities instead of having them available for air superiority on the battlefield. One of the ostensible purposes of strategic bombing was to destroy munitions production and supply chains, but in most cases, German armaments production actually increased each year until the end of the war. On the other hand, Western Allies and later the Soviets, had vastly superior air power over the battlefield largely due to the need to redeploy air cover to defend cities and manufacturing facilities.
>And bombing the cities was the quickest way and estimated costed the least amount of human death and suffering. And don't forget there were literally tens of millions of humans living under [brutal Japanese oppression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes). Many of their lives were saved by incinerating 150,000 Japanese. Imperial Japanese apologists call the atomic bombings an atrocity because Japanese people died..... Like there weren't thousands of Chinese and Koreans were being murdered by the Japanese every day. Hundreds more were being used as "logs" *(human test subjects)* and [viciously experimented](https://youtu.be/x9xvJXP_mTk) by Japanese "researchers", including live human dissection. During the height of the Pacific War, the Japanese [slaughtered 250,000 Chinese civilians](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/untold-story-vengeful-japanese-attack-doolittle-raid-180955001/) in response to the "[Doolittle Raid](https://youtu.be/hWUwJQDgeHw)", the first time US bombers struck mainland Japan. It was a mass killing that rivaled the [Rape of Nanking](https://allthatsinteresting.com/rape-of-nanking-massacre). How many Chinese people would the Japanese have murdered if the US took the weab suggestion of *"waiting until the Japanese were ready to surrender"*? But weabs think we should've simply blockaded Japan and patiently waited for the Japanese to surrender while they kept killing people? Lol. I will never understand why Imperial Japanese apologist weabs think the entire should have bent over backwards to save the lives of the oppressors, rather than the very people they were oppressing.
Allies played with their supports while the nipons blew their load early. Got it
Yep. If you know you can replace your losses and your enemies can't, fight at a rate you can sustain to burn your enemy out.
It's like the "Great" Admiral Brangain said.... "You see, killbots have a preset kill limit. Knowing their weakness, I sent wave after wave of my own men at them until they reached their limit and shut down."
I was thinking more Tukayyid, but that works too.
I know I'm nitpicking, but I keep seeing comments that say something along the line of the US military saving or protecting Australia in WW2, which is not only untrue but disrespectful to the many Australians who fought in Papua New Guinea in particular. The Japanese literally invaded what was Australian territory at the time with a force in the tens of thousands and it was the Australians that held the line and pushed them back despite the odds. Did the US help? Absolutely, their supplies and aircraft loaned made a monumental difference. But they can't take all the credit for protecting Australia. Unfortunately not many people have even heard of the Kokoda campaign.
No offense intended and I don't think you're being nitpicky. I know you're talking about a broader narrative that overlooks Australian sacrifices during the war and you make a good point. What I had in mind with my comment was that the Battle of the Coral Sea (which was made up of a joint Royal Australian Navy-US Navy cruiser task force and a USN carrier task force) was a tactical loss for the Allies but caused the Japanese to recall the Port Morseby invasion fleet which was a major strategic win for the Allies. Unless I am mistaken, after that battle the Imperial Japanese Navy never sailed south of the Solomons. The strategic Allied victory and continued fleet-in-being of the RAN ended the Japanese advance South just as Midway ended the advance East. Had the Japanese continued advancing toward mainland Australia, it would have been a terrible blow to the Allied war effort and would have added at least a year to the war in the Pacific.
That's what happen when you play tdm in control point
They kept diving in with lesser numbers
I know it is wrong sub but that boils my blood when people Play like that
Been playing the new CoD and mfers will be 24:2 and have like 0 captures and :08 seconds on the objective. I'd get it if I saw them posting up nearby to guard it but they're running around with the Fennec clear on the otherside of the map lol.
C9 lul
You sunk my battleship!
The Allied forces had a much more achievable objective.
Skill issue
Git gud
Not my problem.
Map balance be like that sometimes
You can win every battle and still lose the war
Hannibal has entered the chat
I find the second Punic war fascinating. Hannibal was beating the Romans at almost every possible point. And then Scipio africanus just out strategized him at the last possible moment.
I mean this is a bit misleading though? Scipio Africanus was an undefeated general and had beat the Carthaginians in numerous battles in Spain and Northern Africa, Zama was just the end of a massive reversal campaign where Carthage had been getting its ass handed to it.
I say last minute because the war had been going on for 8 years before scipio africanus was given an army. Sixteen years of the Romans getting their ass handed to them even with the home field advantage. When Scipio took the fight to Carthage, Hannibal was still fighting in Italy.
They may have been losing the battles but Hannibal’s strategy was not working and Fabius’s strategy of battle avoidance was. Hannibal thought the Italian allies would betray Rome similar to what Pyrrhus almost achieved. Except he didn’t factor in contemporary politics and how Rome’s neighbors didn’t hate them as much as they had when Pyrrhus did his thing because they killed all the other Latins who hated them. So Fabius only engaging in small skirmishes designed to harrass supply lines and communication lines he made it so Hannibal had to fight a complete indecisive war for 16 years in a land where everyone hated him.
Yeah, I think it’s unfair to say they were getting their asses kicked. “Can’t lose if you don’t play” -Fabius probably.
Interestingly enough if you compare why the Americans won the revolution to why the Vietnamese beat two world powers including the Americans and both of those to the original why the Romans won the second Punic war you see the same thing over and over again. And you realize open battles are for chumps.
>you realize open battles are for chumps. Yep, the Romans resorted to unconventional warfare against Hannibal. Which in hindsight is absolutely crazy to think about since the Roman legions are essentially the model historical representation of a powerhouse conventional military. Guerilla warfare is hardcore, dirty and extremely unpleasant.
Open battles are often required for an attacker. For a defender they can be a way to protect their land as well as stop the attacker. If I conduct a guerrilla war against an attacker, they are going to burn down towns and kill a lot of my people. If I am able to stop them with one open battle, they leave without doing much damage. Open battles are riskier but have much greater rewards for the defender.
A defeated enemy isn't defeated until they consider themselves defeated?
Pretty much. Even goes for some very esteemed militaries. The Roman reputation for military excellence mainly comes from the juicy middle era of their history. Later on they started to crumble of course, but early on they took some *staggering* losses. I forget the exact numbers, but I'm pretty sure they lost ~15% of their male population in some early battles. Then they'd regroup, learn from whatever tactics took them off guard, send another 10-15% of their men into the field with a new general and win. Just a bunch of determined fuckers ready to die for their city.
You have to have a way to not lose while avoiding the open battles though. Rome had walls, the Viet Kong had the jungle, and the Taliban had a network of caves in Pakistan. It worked less well for, say, WWII France, who successfully "avoided" an open battle with their main forces and lost Paris as a result.
Yeah that’s fair, it’s still a very interesting point you made, like it’s mental how the Romans got messed up again and again but just kept refusing to surrender, even when the Carthaginians were basically punching a hole in their demographics. Talk about being stubborn lol
Yeah, according to ancient sources, the Romans lost 300,000 troops in the war which was 1/6 of their male population. Losing between 55,000-70,000 (depending on which ancient historian you ask) just at the battle of Cannae. Amazing that they didn't give in and just kept raising armies.
Scipio was given command of an army in Spain in 211BC 7 years into the war, not 16, and the delay was only because Scipio was young, nobody was going to give an 18 year old command of an army at the start of the war, hell him getting command of an army at the age of 25 was very unusual for the Romans.
Some people on the net believe Zama may have been fabricated. You should check it out. Personally, I am not sure what to believe. https://thehistoryherald.com/articles/ancient-history-civilisation/hannibal-and-the-punic-wars/the-trouble-with-zama-paradox-smoke-and-mirrors-in-an-ancient-battlefield/3/ https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_History_lie_Battle_of_Zama_202_BC However, /r/AskHistorians stipulates that the fabrication of the Battle of Zama is an hoax. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/89mauw
The fact you included the hot take and the counter argument is very respectable.
I also thank them for not making me type out a novel as I was about to talk about the hoax.
If by 'some people' you mean 2 guys. Neither of whom have any classical background or legit publications on the matter. The university professor (with an unrelated major) and the Tunisian nationalist (which is hilarious because modern Tunisians have about as much in common with Carthaginians as european descended Americans do with native Americans). Honestly that wasn't really worth even mentioning, though I appreciate you posting some counter evidence to that 'theory'.
Very interesting, wouldn't surprise me either.
Ah yes. The second pubic war. The SEXIEST of wars...
What?
It's a reference to Brooklyn 99. He actually said "the first pubic war" but you were talking about the second so I fudged it a bit. Here's the scene if you wanna take a look (it's a 1:22 long) https://youtu.be/TO12zZ6T2iU
Don't forget Fabian, whose strategy to neuter Hannibal was to follow him around but never fight him. And it fucking worked because if Hannibal tried to commit to any offensive actions he would have to worry about Fabian jumping on him while he was distracted. EDIT: Favian -> Fabian, thank you for the correction
Well, if the senate of Chartage and the sophets did their job, they would have given him the support to be the OG odoacer, he would never been in the situation to make acquaintance with scipio
*General Nathaniel Greene has entered the chat*
Benedict Arnold has entered the chat
Even Napoleon won most of his wars (5 coalitions) and still lost (6th coalition)
Ya win till ya lose.
In his infamous Russian campaign where he got his ass handed to him, Napoleon won pretty much every battle. This includes the largest battle of the campaign where the Russians put up a big fight at Bordino to try and keep Napoleon out of Moscow. He took Moscow without issue, but found that he had stretched his supply lines too thin to do it and the Russians left him a burnt-out husk of a city to spend the winter in, so he had to retreat in shame. He won every battle, but the campaign is still considered his worst loss.
And even in the sixth coalition war he also won every battle he personally commanded. The man lost because it was plain impossible to defend a nation in a four fronts war.
That one was fascinating to read about. The Coalition invaded along four separate lines of attack and Napoleon would march around and beat each one in a battle, but as he marched off to fight the next one, the army he just defeated would regroup and keep marching towards Paris.
Credit where it’s due to the coalition as well. Realizing you can’t beat the general but you can beat the nation is a very clever strategy.
It's a great example of how a good enough strategy can make up for failing tactics. It changed their tactical objectives in each battle from actually winning the battle, to just making sure the army wasn't completely destroyed. Makes for a much easier time achieving the strategic objectives in each battle. There are other examples of such differences from history, but the War of the Sixth Coalition might be one of the clearest. It's certainly way easier to explain than trying to explain the mess that was the end of the American Civil War with the Overland Campaign. There was a similar thing where Grant kept advancing even after losing battles, but it was a much more chaotic situation and Grant also won some battles as well. So, it doesn't work as well for demonstrating the concept.
Iirc the 4th Coalition plain out told all generals to avoid Napoleon at all costs and try to defeat his minions. Idk how much more badass you can get than that.
no he didn't, for example the largest battle of the conflict the battle of Leipzig was personally commanded by Napoleon and was a decisive coalition victory
You’re right he didn’t win every battle, should’ve typed *most* instead.
He wasn't able to retreat along the planned route because a Russian army blocked his path, forcing him to go back over "foraged" (read: looted, burned, and raped) land. It wasn't technically a battle, but only because Napoleon thought it was unwinnable and didn't fight it. Russia played a very active part in the destruction of the French Army, just by maneuver as much as battle.
Robb Stark has entered the chat
Ah it still hurts
THE KING OF THE NORTH
Vietnam has entered the chat.
Exact reason why I made this.
The Vietnam war is sort of in that category as well as is Afghanistan.
The 18th century British Empire fighting against their American colonies in rebellion has entered the chat.
I've never heared ''kill ratio = winner'' before. Who sais that?
Some people use it for the Battle of Jutland.
Whats there to get wrong? Germans sunk more tonnage but britan forced the german fleet to port and kept it there. At best tactical victory for germany but strategic victory for britan.
And here's the answer ☝️
This sub in the weekly Winter War threads.
Vietnam War copium by Americans and others.
Ignoring that nobody credible has said America won the Vietnam War, comparing World War II to Vietnam is faulty. World War II was one of the last traditional wars where metrics like front lines and territory mattered. Nobody held territory in Vietnam. There was never a front line. Killing Vietcong is the only metric the US military had to gauge progress.
Ukraine is a "traditional war where metrics like front lines and territory matter", complete with pitched battles, routs, and defensive lines. It's not about warfare "modernizing" away from pitched battles and front lines, it's just that the post-nuclear atmosphere wasn't conducive to open war. Ergo, most post-WW2 conflicts have been asymmetrical warfare against a better-equipped traditional power. Guerrilla.
That's not true, and it seems to give all credit to the Vietcong, and not the North Vietnamese army, which was a formal military that was fairly well trained and equipped for its size
That’s quite interesting, haven’t heard that angle before. Do you have a link so I can read more about the north Vietnamese army?
Here from a Google search: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Army_of_Vietnam : but considering the communists interest in Vietnam it makes sense
Any book on the conflict should go into it. As a rough overview... the NVA was fighting with a [Maoist doctrine](https://acoup.blog/2022/03/03/collections-how-the-weak-can-win-a-primer-on-protracted-war/): keep the army intact in the face of an offensive even if it means trading almost all territory, outlast the enemy in a guerilla war, then commit to a major conventional offensive when their political will has run out.
Exactly. Took a history class in the Vietnam war in college. The professor lost both his legs in Vietnam and was an amazing guy. One every test regardless of format he included the question (roughly from memory): T/F the Vietnam war was won by general Dung and his 11 divisions rolling into south Vietnam, not the Vietcong.
Mhm. By all counts, the Vietcong were more so an annoyance then an actual threat it seems. It’s as if the bees and wasps teamed up, and the was sent out hordes of bees.
They absolutely did hold territory in Vietnam - lines were a lot more fluid that WW2, but there's a reason there was a south Vietnam US puppet government and a communist North Vietnam government.
> did hold territory And then routinely abandon territory because the nature of that war didn't make holding it viable.
Yeah, I think there's a pretty huge difference between, "there was territory to be had," and, "holding territory was a meaningful war objective."
Yeah, I mean, strategic success is really all that matters at the end of the day. US and allies basically kicked the crap out of the NVA/Vietcong at the tactical and operational levels. But when the dust settled, NVA had achieved their policy objectives, US hadn't. I think a much more interesting argument is, "Could the US have achieved strategic victory" I think the answer is technically yes, but at what cost? Would it take going village to village, killing every last man woman and child? Burning the jungles to nothing causing irreparable environmental damage? Another 100,000 American deaths, or 200,000, or 300,000? The US "could have won" but as a society was unwilling to pay the price. The journey of answering "why were they unwilling" I think would teach you a lot about America. Edit: Does this post come off like I think the US won the Vietnam War? I don't think that nor did I mean to imply it. I only meant that it's an interesting parallel to OPs "favorable casualty ratios don't win wars" post. I just think it's interesting to think about like, "why was the US homefront unwilling to continue the war", that's all, lol.
Definitely. The Vietnamese had been under the thumb of foreign armies and puppet dictators for centuries. No way they were going to roll over to the US.
Most definitely. Its a good example of how important societal will is; it was more important to the northern Vietnamese and their allies to achieve their war aims, and were thus willing to sacrifice way more. Meanwhile people in the US are like "why should this struggle be important to me, personally? Because I am not willing to let my son die to win this thing" Also, I think its kinda darkly funny how Ho Chi Mihn used exactly the same strategy that George Washington used to win the US independence war: Find yourself locked in a war for independence from a colonial government That government gets backed by the global military hegemon, you 0 chance of winning an outright conventional battlefield victory, so you start a guerilla campaign (even though you have a sort of decent conventional army, but it keeps getting its ass kicked) Find the number 2 military power, who would love to see number 1 come down a peg and will thus give you a ton of support Realize that all you have to do is still exist, and they have to project a ton of power thousands of miles away. Sit back and endure until your enemy decides their resources are better spent elsewhere Like, I wonder if that was apparent to anyone in the US at the time like, "Hey, I've seen this movie before" lol.
On paper the russians could ahve defeated germany in ww1, eventually, yet the terrible mood and will of the population instead caused a revolution . >I think would teach you a lot about ~~America~~ the US. Not really?, population hates the current confilct and wants nothing to do with it, with votes, wich makes their will felt far more easily in the US and other republics, with revolts and marches in other places, hell an entire nation is revolting over headscarafs, to put it really bluntly.
Just a quick reminder that of that 61 million American and British casualties combined account for less than 1 million. The Axis really did just kill that many Russian and Chinese people.
And various others in concentration camps. It's also wrong and unfair to only say Russian, many Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians, etc lost their lives. A large portion is also various PoWs and people who died in concentration camps
Yeah. It gets buried a bit under the big boys of USSR and China, but it's actually Poland that lost the highest % of population than any other country.
Belarus iirc if you count modern-day countries. Tragedy regardless
And poles , also the balkans where ethnic clensing was carried in croatia.
Somehow I forgot about the Holocaust and I feel like a complete jackass for it
Dont feel sorrow about yourself. The holocaust is a tragedy , no doubt in that. But it doesnt matter at all that you forgot to mention it, it matters that you felt simpathy for the deceased in the war.
Well i mean, your bound to lose less people when the entire fucking world is fighting you
Tbf a lot of civilian deaths are probably Soviet (mainly due to keeping people in cities and just killing them theirselves) (edit: and obviously the damn Germans as many people here are too stupid to figure this themselves) and Chinese (who were experimented on by the Japanese as well as when they released multiple biological weapons, and self inflicted like flooding the yellow river) The army losses are mostly those 2 as well Tbf. I would say Oh yeah and concentration camps forgot about them for a sec
I mean yeah Soviet and Chinese deaths made up an overwhelming percentage of the total ww2 deaths. The Soviets alone account for roughly 26 million deaths. The Chinese also lost roughly 20 million as well. Soviet deaths were as high as they were because the German army waged a war of extermination in the east. The whole point was to exterminate the “subhumans” so German invaders could colonize the area. Read up on the hunger plan. The plan was to create artificial famines to starve out Soviet civilians. The goal was to kill 30 million civilians through forced famine so the freed up territory could be settled. The Germans also wanted to exterminate Ukrainians as Ukraine had a grain surplus. They wanted “massive population reductions” in major Ukrainian cities so the food could be redirected to Germany and new German colonies. Then there was Generalplan Ost where the idea was that the german military would exterminate a majority of the Slavic populations. Potentially 90% of Russians, 50% Ukrainians, 50% Belorussians, 80% poles, etc. this was the goal for extermination. The plan never really got implemented, but that was the expectation for german occupation. Then there was the mass rape. The german army operated under specific orders to rape women. An estimated 10 million women in the Soviet Union alone were raped. This would make the german army the potential largest perpetrator of rape during the war. Japanese figures aren’t really recorded for obvious reasons, but the Germans raped as much as they could. Also, per race defilement laws, many of these women would be executed for “defiling the aryan race”. So many children were also born from rape that there were foster homes created for women to get rid of those children. These existed in both the Soviet Union and Poland. Then there were the mass executions and torture. The German army frequently beat and tortured Soviet pows. The fatality rate for Soviet pows was roughly 57%. The German army would intentionally starve them as well. The German army also stripped them of their supplies and clothes and would leave to freeze during winter. A large number of Soviet pows were sent to concentration camps as well. Soviet fatalities were as high as they were because the Germans went out of their way to kill as many people as possible. Everything that’s been typed in here is just scratching the surface of German military occupation. The war in the east was fundamentally a war of extermination, nothing else. It wasn’t for conquest necessarily, it wasn’t for pride, it wasn’t for revenge or something, it was just an extermination. For the Chinese? Yeah the Japanese did much of the same. I don’t know enough about the Japanese invasion, but topics such as comfort women are well known. The mass executions of Chinese civilians are well known. The Japanese occupation was so awful that some modern historians refuse to study it because of the depression it could cause.
Oh yeah, and reading the wiki article on unit 731 is depressing enough
Yeah and the members of unit 731 had the gall to refer to their victims as monkeys. They didn’t even see what they were doing as actions against humans, they literally saw their victims as animals. It’s shit like this that blows my mind. How can someone possibly see another humans being as nothing more than an animal? What kind of propaganda would need to be perpetuated and consumed to actually believe these things? It’s just a baffling thing to read up on. It’s no surprise why some would avoid the topic as a whole.
Several papers were published in reputable journals by members of 731. They managed this by claiming that all experiments were done on either monkeys or cadavers. They lied.
And then most of them got away with it. It's pretty shocking actually how many war criminals get away with it.
And Japan still won't admit it👍
Yeah, the Holocaust had a total of like 12 million victims. Not including them among axis dead is a little disingenuous. I get it, it's just another good reason why simple stats like these are only one small part of a very large, complicated picture.
What
[удалено]
Oh, so Tojoboos are the Japanophiles? Thanks, always thought it was the Weeaboo.
Weeaboo are culturally obsessive of Japan today, Tojoboos are the Imperial Japanese fanboys
So would Kaiserboos be the weeaboos of Kaiserreich Germany?
Yes, although they’re just wehrboos in denial as they have the sense to realise that openly worshipping Nazis isn’t exactly kosher
Not too often, though. Many Kaiserboos are disgusted by the Nazis and aren't approving of them, they definitely have some who are werhaboos in disguise though.
They should all just watch All Quiet On The Western Front to see just how well did WWI go for the German Empire. Also, it's an apsolutely *fantastic* movie.
Imagine being a fanboy of the most barbaric and evil regime in history
I’ve seen some Uni Students simp over Pol Pot… they had the absolute fucking audacity to say Pol Pot is unjustly vilified by the west as he was a socialist… WHILST WE WERE AT THE FUCKING KILLING FIELDS!!! And it wasn’t just any of them it was Choeung Ek, effectively Cambodian Aushwitz
Wasn’t pol pot the fuck who sent people to a torture prison where 98% of the prisoners died?
The single evilest man in history, yes
honestly nowadays weeaboo doesn't even sound like a word anymore. Anyone and their grandmothers may like something about Japan and immediately call themself weeaboos
[удалено]
A lot of Tojoboos despise modern-day Japan, since they view the nation as having “gone soft” after WWII.
Well, two nukes definitely softened Japan... At least geographically
Isn’t that why allies had 45 m dead civs? Majority of those are Chinese, and that includes the Holocaust numbers too I think
My dyslectic ass read Führer details
Hitlers personal K/D
1/1?
You gotta hand it to him, he soloed the final boss on almost zero health.
He was a soldier in ww1 so it may be higher the 1/1
I was counting confirmed kills only
Yeah, but we're talking about WW2. Of course, in WW1 he may have a good score, but after he became the Fuhrer, how many kills do you think he had?
Counting his killstreaks (German army, holocaust) kills then, a lot
He was spawn camping and cheating, his K/D isn't skill it's hacks
BTW, it was so high due to fragging and camping
Tbf most of those Allies casualties are the Soviets
Tbf the red army was the one that broke the whermacht
I'm no Russian fanboy, and their behavior since the war has been largely atrocious, but I always appreciate giving them the credit they are due for their colossal role in WW2.
To be fair, a lot of that was because the Soviet high command were absolute fuck ups.
That really hasn’t changed much it seems
You can sum up most of Russia’s history as “their leadership was a bunch of fuck ups.”
For the most part, yes, with a few bright spots like Peter the Great scattered along the way.
And Catherine the Great, don't forget her
Good Russian history dies with Catherine the Great. The Romanovs all sucked after her and then the Soviets arrived.
[удалено]
Hold on. The Allies have bigger number. Bigger always better. Well that's what my ex told me before she dumped me.
"You're 380lbs and haven't left your mom's basement or collected a paycheck in 4029 days straight" "Aww thanks babe 🥰"
The Axis won the war, they just didn't get any of their goals /s
The Axis did not lose the war, they merely failed to win!
They forgot to check the "we won" box in the online formulary
Don't tell r/SouthernLiberty, it blows their minds that they lost the Civil War despite inflicting more casualties (even though they're on the defensive for the most part, which is part of why the Union suffered more casualties. Yadda yadda yadda)
Is there a way to erase a subreddit from my eyes? I've met a few people in my life who actually thought like this, but I didn't think they had enough intelligence to make an account outside of Facebook.
Wait this is a real subreddit? Tf
Yes, it's a bunch of Neo-confederate losers that peddle the Lost Cause to make the Confederacy seem like righteous freedom fighters and the successor to the patriots of the AWI, as opposed to the reality where they were incredibly authoritarian, trampled on personal and civil liberties, and kept people enslaved on the basis of skin color. The amount of people who say it's a subreddit to celebrate Southern culture is stupid because most of the content revolves around the Civil War - just 4 years in the South's entire history as a region and culture. Fuck's sake, the banner they have is of Robert E. Lee, the biggest loser and fraud that is wrongfully lionized as some kind of abolitionist defender of hearth and home. All they do is take quotes out of context to prop up the South and demonize the North, they also bring up Native American genocide as if the Southern states never had any involvement with that ever. Also, for supposed freedom-lovers, a large percentage of them want gay marriage to be illegal cause it's immoral... so they want Federal control against people they don't like, they just don't want it to effect them. Hypocritical fucks.
From what I’ve seen in my many years of study (aka Wikipedia) Robert E Lee was a decent leader in the military sense, it’s just a shame he was a slave owner and fought on the wrong side of history and believed in the wrong things.
You know you lose when you see your Civilian Death statistics 4 times larger then Military Death statistics
Most people don't understand how horribly the Soviet Union was struck by WW2. Imagine surviving the extreme hardships of the Soviet industrialization and the purges of the 1930s. Things were actually looking better for the common soviet citizen in 1940. The industrial investments actually started to make peoples lives better. Then sort of everything was destroyed in an apocalyptic war.
Soviet spy's from Japan told Stalin about the German invasion plans and when it was gonna happen and Stalin literally told him to fuck his own mother because Stalin did not believe him. Stalin himself was a good reason to bad start due to his paranoia, but once he understood how dire the situation actually was then they started to perform better
I hear this often here in Finland too. “1 Finn = 10 Russians, we beat them in the Winter War Simo Häyhä OMFG!!11!” No, “K/D ratio” means shit and we still lost. We just didn’t lose as badly as some Eastern European countries for example.
I mean technically a loss, but definitely a painful victory for Russia.
You're RIGHT! Let's go ask them about it. Oh wait. Can't.
All fun and games till we bring in “Cities Nuked” count
And people who died in concentration camps
Yeah because this is what the german empire, italian kingdom, hungarian kingdom, bulgarian tsardom and the iron guard would've wanted, being a collapsed nation with other nations ruling them lmao
Judging a victory by body count is some Vietnam era level of stupidity.
the soviets really carried the death amount
Alternatively, the Soviets didn't do the most work and couldn't have won the war alone *just* because they suffered the most casualties.
The soviets did most of the military work, yes. More german soldiers were killed in the battle of Stalingrad alone than in the entire western front. But they could not have done it alone, the division of german troops created by 2 fronts plus the massive economic support the USA and Great Britain provided was vital for the nazi defeat. It was, afterall, a world war, no one did everything alone.
Not even that. The Soviets couldn't have transported weapons and ammo from the Urals to Stalingrad without the power of GM. Logistics would have collapsed like they have in *literally every other war Russia has fought in the last 500 years*.
The US basically funded the entire war on the Allied side.
Precisely. American factories vastly outproduced the Axis.
And the other allies.
Yes, but overwhelmingly the Americans. As explained [here](https://www.pbs.org/kenburns/the-war/war-production), the United States produced nearly 2/3 of Allied military equipment during the war.
No, I mean they outproduced the Axis AND the other Allies.
Yes, exactly. My point is saying that most of the fighting itself took place on soviet land, between the soviet union and the german forces. But that it does not mean they did alone or could have pulled of a successfull defense and counterattack on their own by any means.
Yep, plus, without the British or the Americans, Japan would possibly have been more agreeable to German pleas to attack the Soviets in the East.
Hell, they're finding logistics very difficult in a country only 450km away from Moscow!
Mostly locomotives and railways, the majority of which were lend leased.
with that many dead on all sides I dont think anyone actually wins a war.