WWII is a religion in the west, and as we can see with the reactions to a recent guest on Tucker's show, opinions outside accepted WWII dogma draw strong moral outrage. We all know that Official Narratives™ are always wrong, in some way, but normie land does not.
The enormous lies surrounding both world wars are quite literally the foundation of the modern world. That's why we are bombarded daily with propaganda about WW2 since the end of the war. If the truth comes out the system will collapse over night.
They weren't nitpicking. They were straight up lying in some cases.
For example, the guy claimed that Germans did not plan for the large numbers of POWs that they would capture in the USSR, and that these ended up dying. Now, this isn't right, because the Germans wanted the population of the USSR dead anyway (see General Plan Ost).
They claimed that he was talking about the Holocaust, which is false. They also claimed that it is wrong that the Germans often started murdering people because of overpopulation and because they couldn't feed them, which is acknowledged by mainstream historians.
They don't care about that guy. They want to discredit Tucker, who is a threat to the ruling class.
Now, this isn't right, because the Germans wanted the population of the USSR dead anyway (see General Plan Ost).
Stop spreading that bullshit. Germany didn't even have enough settlers to properly resettle her eastern territories lost after WW1, which were partially ethnically cleansed by Poland, let alone the vast territories of the USSR. Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike against the bolshevik threat not an invasion to gain territory.
They also claimed that it is wrong that the Germans often started murdering people because of overpopulation and because they couldn't feed them, which is acknowledged by mainstream historians.
Stop spreading that bullshit. Germany didn't even have enough settlers to properly resettle her eastern territories lost after WW1, which were partially ethnically cleansed by Poland, let alone the vast territories of the USSR.
Who talked about 'resettling', let alone during a war? Fact is, the Germans wanted to starve the inhabitants of the USSR and brutalized them - as well as Soviet POWs.
Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike against the bolshevik threat not an invasion to gain territory.
If you start trying to justify Hitler, which is what they are suggesting (or even tricking you into), you play into their game. But Hitler isn't even the topic. I actually think it's a mistake to declare Churchill the "most warlike" and then have to talk about Hitler. Well, it gets clicks. But it's not a useful discussion.
It was an opinion thread. That's what the C/N missed most.
Who talked about 'resettling', let alone during a war? Fact is, the Germans wanted to starve the inhabitants of the USSR and brutalized them - as well as Soviet POWs.
Resettle was the wrong word but the context should have made it pretty clear what I was talking about. Germany did not have enough (willing) settlers to settle her own eastern territories again let alone the USSR. So fuck off with your Generalplan Ost which was imagined by a singular irrelevant individual who held never any position of actual power and was never taken seriously.
Several hundred thousand Soviets fought on the German side as volunteers. At least 350.000 volunteers from all over Europa fought in the German army. Curious, isn't it?
Who talked about 'resettling', let alone during a war? Fact is, the Germans wanted to starve the inhabitants of the USSR and brutalized them - as well as Soviet POWs.
Of course they did. Just as they used deadly masturbation machines, electrified belts, catapults, rollercoasters, hacked Belgian children's hands off in WW1, made lampshades out of skin, used Jews to make soap and so on.
OK, you're retarded.
It is retarded to believe that a nation with no strategic reserves, vastly outgunned, outnumbered and underequipped in every aspect, starts a war to take over Europe and genocide half its population. But I guess you also believe that England and France just wanted to protect Poland despite watching her get spitroasted and not lifting a finger because that would have meant declaring war on the Soviets as well despite the fact that Germany would have collapsed within months if not weeks if they had acted. Instead Poland was immediately sold out to the Soviets alongside half of Europe and the world was thrown into a so called Cold War that drowned Asia, Africa and South America in blood.
Let me tell you a secret. Germany's secret to military success in WW2 wasn't her imaginary all powerful war machine with its legions of super soldiers. It was the mindbogglingly incompetence of her enemies.
What seems to be confusing you?
How about giving me an example besides WW2 propaganda?
But hey. Fortunately the entire German leadership was murdered, the Nuremberg Trial didn't give a shit about evidence, confessions were forced through torture and the last living member of the German government who was imprisoned since 1941 conveniently Epstein'd himself when he was about to be released despite being so old and frail that he wasn't physically able to hang himself.
But I'm sure the mainstream narrative is truthful. Mask on my friend and don't forget to get your next booster else you're gonna murder your Grandma with your hugs.
For example, the guy claimed that Germans did not plan for the large numbers of POWs that they would capture in the USSR, and that these ended up dying. Now, this isn't right, because the Germans wanted the population of the USSR dead anyway (see General Plan Ost).
I think we agree, but let me say:
The treatment of POWs isn't what the thread was about. Not even starvation of Europe. The thread is about a fat drunk named Winston Churchill.
Oh there was a ton of just spew about him. A lot of it was simply slander that is common these days like "Nazi." Others were more insidious. The Wikipedia problem is annoying.
Preventing a power to rise that could challenge the US is the strategic imperative of the US.
Just like the UK doesn't want a unified power on the continent.
That explains both the US and UK's actions in WW2 on a realpolitik level.
Realpolitik would have been something like kick the Russians when they're down. In fact, the US allowed a power to rise out of WW2 that did challenge the US. And I think it did so because of sympathy within the US to the Bolsheviks.
Imagine for a moment that the US 'kicked the Russians when they were down'. Meaning, aid the Germans to extend their dominion to the Urals.
Germany controlled Europe from France, through Norway, Switzerland, Greece, and was allied with Italy, Spain, Hungary and Romania. Basically, the entire post World War II 'NATO alliance' sans the UK.
This is formidable power. Now add to that the industrial capacity and agricultural riches that were poorly exploited by communism and collectivizaton. Add to that the power of Japan and how it was (at that moment flailing at) conquering China and planning to take European colonies in Asia.
Just put the hypothetical Nazi victory in Russia vs. the postwar USSR and its satellites on a map. I'm not sure how you think that would have been less of a threat to US hegemony. Add to that: the actually rich and industrialized parts of Europe were controlled by Germany, and they did not have a self-defeating economic system (or at least less of one) to implode.
What-ifs are hard, but you can't deny that US policy failed to prevent a threat from emerging that challenged the US. So they didn't win.
They also gave Europe up to Communism. The US was never at risk of being occupied. I think, honestly, they were just tired of war after beating the Germans, and especially after beating the Japanese, and I don't blame them for that.
That is the only explanation for the US and UK's actions. The only role that Nazi politics played was that it was more expansionistic and thus triggered the balancing coalition that ultimately ended it.
That's just pragmatic. Both were problems and almost certainly going to be even more so if they won.
I have no love for Truman and I'm sure other things he said makes this far less logical, but I'm struggling to see a real issue with our foreign policy being based on pure pragmatism instead of whatever Politician deems "moral."
Because the pragmatism is to the benefit of the politicians and to the detriment of the people, not just in Germany and Russia, but America as well. I'm not sure what ordinary Americans are getting out of the fact that their country is the hegemon and bullies the rest of us.
Well in this case it was the fact that whoever won between these two was going to be a problem after nearly certainly (as shown by Russia in fact doing so). So the smarter option was to weaken one while removing the other.
Its pragmatic because its certain more wars were to follow, so it benefits the ordinary American by not sending their sons to another war a decade later and then a decade after that too, which is what ended up happening.
If Europe could handle itself rather than let Germany, twice, and then Russia cause global reaching problems, then I'd say that its not our business and to stay isolationist. But history has shown they literally cannot stop warring, and in an increasingly globalized world that is all of our problem.
We face the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first bad move. ... The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot.
No doubt, I know they were pushed into it, but just like the Confederates at Ft Sumter, they still fired the first shot. Furthermore, they didn't think strategically when it came to target selection at Pearl Harbor, they left the fuel oil tanks alone, and completely ignored all shipyard facilities. They should have sent a third wave to hit those targets, but Nagumo was too timid.
What they should have done was not attack America at all and just gone for the Dutch East Indies and maybe British Malaya. Then pray to God America not get involved. Then if America gets involved their strategy of making it a bloody slog to the point Americans can accept a negotiated peace, instead of unconditional surrender is much more plausible. Getting revenge for Pearl Harbor is a huge motivator. Fighting for some Dutch colonies isn't. The whole time making it clear they don't/didn't want war with America and only want peace.
I also think Japan could have done far more harm to America's Navy early on. Most of the ships at Pear Harbor were recovered do to the shallow waters and the Carriers weren't present. Yamamoto understood the importance of Carriers early on and the Japanese sailors and pilots were more experienced. Japan could have sunk a lot of those ships in much deeper waters like they did to the British during the Indian Ocean Raids.
'Revenge for Pearl Harbor' was just what 'fighting for democracy' is to the current war. It's the, no disrespect, motivation for the stupid people. In both cases, maintaining American hegemony is the motivation for the ruling class, which would have existed with or without Pearl Harbor.
And the motivation of those "stupid people" is what drives recruitment and morale of the actual soldiers. That motivation is required for victory in a near peer conflict.
There's a slight, but I believe important difference between the two situations. fort Sumter was indeed a union fort, but it was deep within Confederate territory and the CSA just declared itself an independent nation. It could be argued that the Union was illegally occupying the CSA and were expelled with force.
Pearl harbor was US territory amongst US held space. Unlike fort Sumter, you cannot claim that the attack on Pearl harbor was defensive.
the funny thing is they were so close to finishing it. if the carriers were at pearl harbor and we're sunk, that likely would have been the end of the war. even if the US wanted to enter the war, they would have been incredibly behind as Japan steam rolls over the Eastern Pacific.
Japan would have been nuked even if it army had been squeaky clean, which obviously it was not.
The nukes were not 'revenge'. They were an exercise of power. An attestation to the fact that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, just like the Japanese did in China.
Ah yes, the high-ranking Freemason that had the US nuke two of the most Western/religious cities in Japan within a month of the successful Trinity bombing test.
The narrative that makes the most sense is that the Japan bombings were done to get a quick surrender out of the nation and halt Russian advances against Japan. Basically did not want a repeat of the disastrous partitioning of Germany (thanks FDR) and invading Japan was going to cost a lot of lives (tons of Purple Hearts were made in advance of the invasion and were handed/reused later). But given Truman's background, the selection of cities probably was to stick to Christians (Hiroshima) and Jesuits (Nagasaki), not because "all the major cities were already burned", not much randomness about it.
i don't disagree with you but on the topic of the jesuits specifically, I don't trust the jesuits , im pretty sure they are crypto jews, if you look at old paintings of the jesuits in Japan, they had suspiciously big noses, and they were the ones who made up the fake story of Yasuke and the current woke pope is a jesuit
WWII is a religion in the west, and as we can see with the reactions to a recent guest on Tucker's show, opinions outside accepted WWII dogma draw strong moral outrage. We all know that Official Narratives™ are always wrong, in some way, but normie land does not.
The enormous lies surrounding both world wars are quite literally the foundation of the modern world. That's why we are bombarded daily with propaganda about WW2 since the end of the war. If the truth comes out the system will collapse over night.
The attempts to deboonk that guy were pathetic. They wanted to nitpick irrelevant facts without addressing the broader narrative.
Mostly they just called everyone and anyone a Nazi though. It was on par with TD.win reactions to a Proud Boys rally.
They weren't nitpicking. They were straight up lying in some cases.
For example, the guy claimed that Germans did not plan for the large numbers of POWs that they would capture in the USSR, and that these ended up dying. Now, this isn't right, because the Germans wanted the population of the USSR dead anyway (see General Plan Ost).
They claimed that he was talking about the Holocaust, which is false. They also claimed that it is wrong that the Germans often started murdering people because of overpopulation and because they couldn't feed them, which is acknowledged by mainstream historians.
They don't care about that guy. They want to discredit Tucker, who is a threat to the ruling class.
Stop spreading that bullshit. Germany didn't even have enough settlers to properly resettle her eastern territories lost after WW1, which were partially ethnically cleansed by Poland, let alone the vast territories of the USSR. Operation Barbarossa was a preemptive strike against the bolshevik threat not an invasion to gain territory.
What the hell are you even talking about?
Who talked about 'resettling', let alone during a war? Fact is, the Germans wanted to starve the inhabitants of the USSR and brutalized them - as well as Soviet POWs.
OK, you're retarded.
What seems to be confusing you?
If you start trying to justify Hitler, which is what they are suggesting (or even tricking you into), you play into their game. But Hitler isn't even the topic. I actually think it's a mistake to declare Churchill the "most warlike" and then have to talk about Hitler. Well, it gets clicks. But it's not a useful discussion.
It was an opinion thread. That's what the C/N missed most.
Resettle was the wrong word but the context should have made it pretty clear what I was talking about. Germany did not have enough (willing) settlers to settle her own eastern territories again let alone the USSR. So fuck off with your Generalplan Ost which was imagined by a singular irrelevant individual who held never any position of actual power and was never taken seriously.
Several hundred thousand Soviets fought on the German side as volunteers. At least 350.000 volunteers from all over Europa fought in the German army. Curious, isn't it?
Of course they did. Just as they used deadly masturbation machines, electrified belts, catapults, rollercoasters, hacked Belgian children's hands off in WW1, made lampshades out of skin, used Jews to make soap and so on.
It is retarded to believe that a nation with no strategic reserves, vastly outgunned, outnumbered and underequipped in every aspect, starts a war to take over Europe and genocide half its population. But I guess you also believe that England and France just wanted to protect Poland despite watching her get spitroasted and not lifting a finger because that would have meant declaring war on the Soviets as well despite the fact that Germany would have collapsed within months if not weeks if they had acted. Instead Poland was immediately sold out to the Soviets alongside half of Europe and the world was thrown into a so called Cold War that drowned Asia, Africa and South America in blood.
Let me tell you a secret. Germany's secret to military success in WW2 wasn't her imaginary all powerful war machine with its legions of super soldiers. It was the mindbogglingly incompetence of her enemies.
How about giving me an example besides WW2 propaganda?
But hey. Fortunately the entire German leadership was murdered, the Nuremberg Trial didn't give a shit about evidence, confessions were forced through torture and the last living member of the German government who was imprisoned since 1941 conveniently Epstein'd himself when he was about to be released despite being so old and frail that he wasn't physically able to hang himself.
But I'm sure the mainstream narrative is truthful. Mask on my friend and don't forget to get your next booster else you're gonna murder your Grandma with your hugs.
I think we agree, but let me say:
The treatment of POWs isn't what the thread was about. Not even starvation of Europe. The thread is about a fat drunk named Winston Churchill.
I'm aware. Just giving an example of where they were blatantly lying about that Daryl fellow.
Oh there was a ton of just spew about him. A lot of it was simply slander that is common these days like "Nazi." Others were more insidious. The Wikipedia problem is annoying.
That is pretty monstrous, though a gaffe in the Kinsey sense of accidentally telling the truth.
"kill as many as possible" seems to be the US regime line in many places, including Ukraine-Russia.
Preventing a power to rise that could challenge the US is the strategic imperative of the US. Just like the UK doesn't want a unified power on the continent.
That explains both the US and UK's actions in WW2 on a realpolitik level.
Realpolitik would have been something like kick the Russians when they're down. In fact, the US allowed a power to rise out of WW2 that did challenge the US. And I think it did so because of sympathy within the US to the Bolsheviks.
Imagine for a moment that the US 'kicked the Russians when they were down'. Meaning, aid the Germans to extend their dominion to the Urals.
Germany controlled Europe from France, through Norway, Switzerland, Greece, and was allied with Italy, Spain, Hungary and Romania. Basically, the entire post World War II 'NATO alliance' sans the UK.
This is formidable power. Now add to that the industrial capacity and agricultural riches that were poorly exploited by communism and collectivizaton. Add to that the power of Japan and how it was (at that moment flailing at) conquering China and planning to take European colonies in Asia.
Just put the hypothetical Nazi victory in Russia vs. the postwar USSR and its satellites on a map. I'm not sure how you think that would have been less of a threat to US hegemony. Add to that: the actually rich and industrialized parts of Europe were controlled by Germany, and they did not have a self-defeating economic system (or at least less of one) to implode.
What-ifs are hard, but you can't deny that US policy failed to prevent a threat from emerging that challenged the US. So they didn't win.
They also gave Europe up to Communism. The US was never at risk of being occupied. I think, honestly, they were just tired of war after beating the Germans, and especially after beating the Japanese, and I don't blame them for that.
I don't deny that. It prevented a greater threat from emerging at the cost of a lesser threat - to US hegemony. That is a win for US hegemony.
That is the only explanation for the US and UK's actions. The only role that Nazi politics played was that it was more expansionistic and thus triggered the balancing coalition that ultimately ended it.
how about not getting involved at all?
That's just pragmatic. Both were problems and almost certainly going to be even more so if they won.
I have no love for Truman and I'm sure other things he said makes this far less logical, but I'm struggling to see a real issue with our foreign policy being based on pure pragmatism instead of whatever Politician deems "moral."
Because the pragmatism is to the benefit of the politicians and to the detriment of the people, not just in Germany and Russia, but America as well. I'm not sure what ordinary Americans are getting out of the fact that their country is the hegemon and bullies the rest of us.
Well in this case it was the fact that whoever won between these two was going to be a problem after nearly certainly (as shown by Russia in fact doing so). So the smarter option was to weaken one while removing the other.
Its pragmatic because its certain more wars were to follow, so it benefits the ordinary American by not sending their sons to another war a decade later and then a decade after that too, which is what ended up happening.
If Europe could handle itself rather than let Germany, twice, and then Russia cause global reaching problems, then I'd say that its not our business and to stay isolationist. But history has shown they literally cannot stop warring, and in an increasingly globalized world that is all of our problem.
Upvote for Hitler, downvote for Stalin.
“Henry Truman”
AI generated titles can’t even get names right.
my bad. i didn't read the name properly. And its not a "AI generated title"
granted, the source article predates online publication so archiving this is a bit of a chore.
I can confirm that New York Times attributed this quote to Truman in their obituary of him. https://archive.is/BOGXj
This quote is very well-known, he may be forgiven for using a screenshot.
I guess my history of Truman is not very good, it was the first I heard of it
i don't think its well known. I don't know where he got the idea that its a "well known quote"
That I've encountered it in several WW2 books.
I didn't mean that the average man on the street is likely to know it.
"Japan committed horrible war crimes and saw the sun twice because of it"
--something I was told on another win a few weeks ago
I've been to Hiroshima, stood in front of the bombed out Observatory. What was I thinking?
"Don't start what you can't finish."
---Henry L. Stimson Secretary of war
Who started it again?
No doubt, I know they were pushed into it, but just like the Confederates at Ft Sumter, they still fired the first shot. Furthermore, they didn't think strategically when it came to target selection at Pearl Harbor, they left the fuel oil tanks alone, and completely ignored all shipyard facilities. They should have sent a third wave to hit those targets, but Nagumo was too timid.
What they should have done was not attack America at all and just gone for the Dutch East Indies and maybe British Malaya. Then pray to God America not get involved. Then if America gets involved their strategy of making it a bloody slog to the point Americans can accept a negotiated peace, instead of unconditional surrender is much more plausible. Getting revenge for Pearl Harbor is a huge motivator. Fighting for some Dutch colonies isn't. The whole time making it clear they don't/didn't want war with America and only want peace.
I also think Japan could have done far more harm to America's Navy early on. Most of the ships at Pear Harbor were recovered do to the shallow waters and the Carriers weren't present. Yamamoto understood the importance of Carriers early on and the Japanese sailors and pilots were more experienced. Japan could have sunk a lot of those ships in much deeper waters like they did to the British during the Indian Ocean Raids.
'Revenge for Pearl Harbor' was just what 'fighting for democracy' is to the current war. It's the, no disrespect, motivation for the stupid people. In both cases, maintaining American hegemony is the motivation for the ruling class, which would have existed with or without Pearl Harbor.
And the motivation of those "stupid people" is what drives recruitment and morale of the actual soldiers. That motivation is required for victory in a near peer conflict.
Correct. The ruling classes could have gotten America into a war with Japan sooner, but with lower morale.
There's a slight, but I believe important difference between the two situations. fort Sumter was indeed a union fort, but it was deep within Confederate territory and the CSA just declared itself an independent nation. It could be argued that the Union was illegally occupying the CSA and were expelled with force.
Pearl harbor was US territory amongst US held space. Unlike fort Sumter, you cannot claim that the attack on Pearl harbor was defensive.
Most Europeans do not know that Hitler declared war on the US, and think that they 'liberated' us out of goodwill or something.
Are you talking about Japan attacking the US, or the US nuking Japan?
the funny thing is they were so close to finishing it. if the carriers were at pearl harbor and we're sunk, that likely would have been the end of the war. even if the US wanted to enter the war, they would have been incredibly behind as Japan steam rolls over the Eastern Pacific.
Japan would have been nuked even if it army had been squeaky clean, which obviously it was not.
The nukes were not 'revenge'. They were an exercise of power. An attestation to the fact that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must, just like the Japanese did in China.
Ah yes, the high-ranking Freemason that had the US nuke two of the most Western/religious cities in Japan within a month of the successful Trinity bombing test.
The narrative that makes the most sense is that the Japan bombings were done to get a quick surrender out of the nation and halt Russian advances against Japan. Basically did not want a repeat of the disastrous partitioning of Germany (thanks FDR) and invading Japan was going to cost a lot of lives (tons of Purple Hearts were made in advance of the invasion and were handed/reused later). But given Truman's background, the selection of cities probably was to stick to Christians (Hiroshima) and Jesuits (Nagasaki), not because "all the major cities were already burned", not much randomness about it.
i don't disagree with you but on the topic of the jesuits specifically, I don't trust the jesuits , im pretty sure they are crypto jews, if you look at old paintings of the jesuits in Japan, they had suspiciously big noses, and they were the ones who made up the fake story of Yasuke and the current woke pope is a jesuit