And isnt it weird how the Russians and German's hubris has always led them to undersetimate the scrappy but ultimately superior american cunning?
Theres 101 stories of the brave Lt with no air support or artillery supporting holding off a whole battalion with onlu 100 men.
I wonder why nobody in history has ever pulled off a glorious combat from the bad side.
Because history is written by the victor.
History. Is filled. With liars. If he lives and we die, his truth becomes written....
Yea, the winner is automatically the good guy and the loser the bad guy, because the winner says so.
"What is History, but a fable agreed upon?"
“What is a man? A miserable little pile of secrets.”
"What is love? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more."
-- Adolf Schicklgruber
Only slightly off topic, but I saw two hilarious related things; one was probably a joke, the other was dead serious. Paraphrasing:
"I can't support Elon and Space X anymore. I refuse to do business with someone who would be involved with Nazis. I'm switching my support to NASA."
and
"How could these absolute traitors sell these people out to Russia?! They're scum! These people are betraying our WW2 allies to side with Russia!"
People are stupid, and history is just a useful tool to push their modern agendas and biases. Very few people care about actual historical accuracy. That's why the bad guys never win wars.
Not only is history written by the victors, but the Good Guys also change based on current agendas and who is currently in charge.
I will say it's a shame how far we've drifted from both "sides," geopolitically. Historically we have shared a lot in common with Europe, and I'd love it if places like Germany and France and Britain hadn't gone insane. We should be closer allies with them but, as things stand, we instead need to run far, far away from these fucks, because they're currently toxic.
Likewise, we're told Russia is toxic, but I'd personally like to try to normalize relations. We don't have to be friends, but we should be sitting down to talk and trying to at least become allies of convenience. It doesn't have to be as antagonistic as it has been. Can Russia be trusted? No, but neither can any of our other allies...it's just how geopolitics works. Everyone spies on everyone, everyone manipulates everyone. It's not a uniquely Russian thing.
My part of it has always been that the Allies were liars who committed atrocities and lied about it. The Holocaust is 50 to 85% exaggerated and the begining of the War was entirely reasonable on Germany's part.
Hitler was also a funked up evil shit. So was Churchill so was Truman, guess what so's putin and so is trump. They're all nasty greedy bad people.
But their opponents are as bad with better PR. I GET the no more brother wars thing, and I also GET Putin looking at the approaching cancer of globohomo towards the nation he loves and saying "fuck that, die"
Being a patriot isn't an automatic "hero" mark, but fuck it's more respectable than selling your own people to make a buck.
That second one of yours is fucking bonkers though. Makes me think of Eisenhower
People know about the "Blitz" bombings. Most aren't aware Britain was bombing Berlin a month before the Blitz.
It's that tiny bit of context that the west has left out that muddies the water.
In part because they, British leadership, wanted the Blitz for propaganda reasons.
The other part was they wanted the German citizens homeless and starving.
Exactly, they wanted the bombings and then cried out while they were already striking.
And a significant % of the casualties were British AA shells coming back down.
That was solved in WW1, very quickly.
It may have happened due to the insane number of shells fired? Some would malfunction, but not a significant %.
And that the British army shelled London during the Blitz to both inflict additional damage and put on a show of "repelling" aircraft.
The British heavy bombers were bombing French cities filled with French civilians too. Deliberately. The German air defenses were less likely to shoot them down is the main reason.
Yeah, that's the most offensive bit to me. Talk about the Bad Guys or the Good Guys winning the war is absurd, because there were no pure Good Guys. Oh, and no one was doing it to protect the Jews, that was tacked on afterward.
People have a vastly skewed view of history. On both sides, to be fair; it's hard not to have a skewed view of history, since there's so much of it, and so many different possible interpretations, always filtered through others, almost always with their own biases. The primary people who don't have a skewed view of history are those who are more interested in the actual history itself, instead of the politics. Those people are few and far between. This isn't a dig, but I wouldn't be that surprised if we had none of those people here. And we're probably more likely than average to have them here, since we do have a bunch of nerds and autists and the like.
I got a bit off on a ramble, but my point is, anyone who holds up any of the Allied leaders as basically saints is incredibly indoctrinated, and usually doesn't even know it. Like you said, a bunch of those fuckers behaved in absolutely evil ways. But, if you mention facts a lot of normies' kneejerk reactions are to defend the Heroes...or just call you a Nazi Apologist. No, just like the Axis, the Allies committed a long and heinous string of crimes against humanity.
Yup, especially toward the end. People can discuss his original intentions but, no matter what they were, he got fucked on drugs and the stress, and was not a good person or a leader at the end. Hitler was a monster.
Fuck Churchill. I don't care about politics, any leader who intentionally gets his own people slaughtered is a monster. WW2 leaders deserved each other. The people deserved much better.
1000%. Doesn't make you perfect, but that's one of the main things I want in a leader; care and preference for your own people. The other is not being an evil fuck to others unless it's really, really, really fucking warranted. But, yeah...want to lead your countrymen? You have to love them.
Strange how that monster never used the stockpiles of chemical weapons (tabun and sarin) Germany had.
I didn't say complete monster.
You can be a monster without committing every evil act. Yes, Hitler had some good qualities too, including honor and restraint in some aspects of war. Pretty much every WW2 leader was a monster in some respect or another.
So which chapters of his story do you choose not to believe that he remains a monster but not a complete monster?
The UK planned to massively kill German civilians by dropping 5 million anthrax-filled cakes ( they were made, and ready to drop ) to infect cattle in Germany during WW II.
The US shipped mustard gas bombs to Italy. Fortunately the ship was sank during a bombing run on Bari.
I never imagine Trump as a literal emperor saint, but I refuse to ascribe the word 'evil' to him in association with early 20th century tyrants. Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan sure, but Trump's sin is merely not being a first-principles intellectual, and only having better policies than predecessors within living memory. You have to go back to Cleveland and Coolidge/Harding for mature governance.
Yeah I think it's extremely intellectually lazy to be like "this leader is evil, that one is evil, they're all equally evil." No, we are capable of thinking with nuance. We won't get anywhere with that kind of thinking that paints everything with one brush.
And they are selling their Teslas so they can buy a Volkswagen. Probably upgrading their wardrobe to add some Hugo Boss while they are at it.
Drinking their Fantas
My senior year of Highschool we had a new teacher come in and teach History/Civics class. He was one of those young-gun wannabe-cool Philosophy professor types, and he took great joy in telling us that everything we had been taught about history before then was wrong:
Western History was all whitewashed lies made up by the Church,The Pilgrims were greedy retards who came to America for gold, the Indians were way smarter and stronger than them but got sick and lost because the pilgrims were filthy and diseased, the Revolutionary war was a farce, the Civil War, etc.
This went on Until we got to World War Two, apparently that was the only war in human history that hasn’t been embellished or misreported in any way…
Mostly because of logistics more than anything.
The British Empire and the United States are Logistical MONSTERS when you look into it. The Americans only gained independence thanks to the French at great expense fucking with the British supply and the Soviets only won against the Nazis on their side thanks to American land lease.
Now combine that with a more independent, individual way of thinking and you have people able to act independently with the supplies required to take those risks. There were probably brave Germans and Russians but they ran out of ammo before they could do anything..
there are plenty of courageous war stories from the bad guys, they just aren't celebrated because they fought for the bad guys.
I think what truly made me look for alternative opinions instead of believing the official narrative was reading about Vlad Tepes. I was always interested in medieval history and reading about it made me understand how crucial it is to know the both sides of the story.
Reading up on Vlad for a research project back in college was one of the more interesting assignments I had. The dude was just an absolute savage defender of his people. Interesting guy for sure.
There's a reason why he's considered a national hero, elsewhere? A bloodthirsty tyrant. Thought that was strange and even hearing he was the inspiration behind the dracula by Bram Stoker which it got me thinking, oh it must be one of their tricks.
Rommel gets good stories because he is not a real nazi or something.
Good example.
It's partially because Soviet propaganda was about the man giving his life for the greater.
A guy would jump into a sniper area so his comrades could take it down is very common. One of those men had a diary talking about his glorious love of the country. His beliefs were so strong they couldn't help publish the diary for all to read.
A warlord's base had a field full of iron spikes except down one path full of snipers. The men charged into the field so their comrades could charge on their backs to take the base.
Snipers held a bridge, and there was no other way to cross. Two men crawled along chains so the snipers could shoot at them and give their positions away.
Children were strapped to bombs and told to hug the American forces.
US and British propaganda is more about the individual winning against the odds. They were stranded, running low on ammo, and still beating the enemy. German troops were often out manned in world war ii and fought off Soviet hordes. They're not remembered because they were the enemy.
This is a really old story. BTW, David was likely around six foot tall and very muscular from his job. We invented the story of a little boy in our modern times.
There were massive political purges in the leadership of the military, eroding combat efficiency. Generals that survived and were successful in the early days of the war, were accused of going against communist doctrine and taken down.
The argument was that outstanding work in the Soviet military was punished, rather than rewarded.
Mostly true!
They'd often give awards for heroic actions "posthumously" even if the person was still alive. "He died doing X" even if he lived, let alone how exaggerated "X" was. They'd even let him live if he kept his mouth shut, continued fighting until the Germans killed him.
They needed the stories of heroism (true or otherwise) to inspire the troops, but were insanely jealous & frightened of normal soldiers gaining popularity over the officers & NKVD.
The story of David hides the details in plain sight: He was a shepherd in ancient Mesopotamia. You'd be hard pressed to find a tougher man on the planet than a Mesopotamian Shepherd. Huge endurance, strong body, and an inbuilt capacity to fight from constantly taking on the lions and wolves who still inhabited the area. It'd be like trying to protect a platter of cheeseburgers in an obesity clinic.
He also put on the kings armor, and he was a head taller than everyone else.
Japan lost WWII and they aren't nearly vilified as the Germans. And they ran death camps and were horrid to western POWs.
Unlike the Nuremberg trials, we actually actively sabotaged the Japanese equivalent, mostly for Operation Paperclip reasons, to take their scientists and use them to boost our chemical weapons stuff.
In addition, a decent portion of the Japanese population pretends nothing happened and there’s nothing to apologize for
Honestly, knowing what the likely alternative looks like? Based.
It's because of the Kalergi plan, to mass import non-whites into White nations, and replace and genocide White people, requires the demonization, demoralization, and brainwashing of White people. The official history of WW2, the Holocaust, demonization of Nazis, demonization of White collectivism, slavery, the Civil War, and colonialism are all used as a bludgeon aimed squarely at White people, to make us compliant in our own replacement and genocide, to accept it, to make us think we're inherently bad and deserve it, that our ancestors were bad, and that we shouldn't collectivize and fight back to stop it. The schools teach this official history, and then Hollywood reinforces it with endless propaganda movies, TV shows, and video games, mostly focusing on WW2 and the Holocaust. There's at least 1 every year.
It's also because Japan wasn't the primary target for WW2. Germany was. Britain (mostly the bankers, zionist backers, and string pullers in Britain) wanted a war with Germany, to destroy the German people. Britain had been gearing up for war years before hostilities broke out. Britain had a deal with Poland, that if war broke out between Poland and Germany, Britain would ally with Poland against Germany, even if Poland was the aggressor. This is why, prior to German invasion, the newly created Polish state had been genociding ethnic Germans living in the newly created Polish borders after WW1, Germans that had lived there for centuries, probably millennia. Poland had also openly bragged they could defeat Germany by themselves, and openly gave out their invasion plans of Germany, multiple times. Poland had also attacked German farms and military installations, in German territory, multiple times. This all occurred before Germany invaded.
In response, Germany invaded, to at the very least try to stop the Polish genocide of the German people. This is why Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but not on Soviet Russia for doing the exact same thing only days later. Poland was merely a pawn to start the war. The string pullers didn't give a shit about the Polish people. There were communiques in the Public Record Office in London that admitted to this secret deal and motivation to instigate a war, records that were kept secret until the early 90s.
Once Britain and France declared war on Germany, it escalated rapidly, which forced Germany to escalate in kind. Much of this escalation was to skirt around France's Maginot line, and to procure resources for Germany. Even though it's openly admitted to in the propaganda, Germany was woefully short on a lot of critical resources, like coal, oil, and fuel. Germany only had access to the worst form of coal in German territory, called lignite coal (also called brown coal), which was only suitable for home furnaces and burning for energy in coal power plants. Richer forms of coal could be converted to liquid fuels, which Germany desperately needed, due to the blockade by the Allies. Germany also didn't have much access to oil, which compounded this problem.
Germany also didn't want to fight against the British, considering them brothers, and repeatedly offered peace terms, even when Germany was winning, even with terms that would give back much of the land Germany had gained. This is why Germany allowed all of the British to flee back to Britain at Dunkirk, when Germany could've easily captured or slaughtered them all, over 300,000 soldiers, which would've completely neutered the British army. All of the peace terms were rejected by the string pullers in Britain, because they were trying desperately to get the U.S. involved in the war against Germany. They used Pearl Harbor to achieve that end. Even though the U.S. blockade of Japan necessarily resulted in that attack, the U.S. government knew Japan was going to attack, and let it happen, to give us casus belli to enter the war, even though the overwhelming majority of Americans didn't want to get involved. It's also why all of the U.S. carriers were outside of Pearl Harbor during the attack, to protect them.
https://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/wrsynopsis.html
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/NHC/NewPDFs/GERMANY/GER.Polish.Atrocities.Against.German.Minority.in.Poland.1940.pdf
Hans Ulrich Rudel, Fritz Christien, Otto Skorzeny, Ernst Barkmann, Simo Häyhä, Erwin Rommel, and many other heroes your schools won't teach you.
The Russians/Soviets have plenty of stories of bravery in battle.
Here's a story from WWI
https://youtu.be/8ClB_DSwHOI?si=hQv4E8Ib95fXItNC
Of course they do, but as soon as the cold war starts their balls drop off and they become mewling wimps who can't fix their own shit and barely literate barbarians.
Because of course they do
Wow I have never heard of this or thought about it before. Also I am 14.
This is silly.
Bad guys won plenty of wars. I’ll just give you one example. Genghis Khan. He and his progeny won a lot of wars and were universally regarded as bad. They succeeded in depopulating a large percentage of the planet.
Russia was the hero when they were communist. Now they are the baddies. What a cohencidence.
Isn't it weird how fools just gobble up a false account of history and are literally unable to think their way out of it?
Isn't it weird that people don't understand, the winner of the war writes the story?
The Romans won countless wars, mostly highly one-sided, but still.
Lots of "minor wars" where both sides were pip-squeaks & who cares if one side is good or bad? Pre WW2 there were plenty of those, The Chaco War (1932 to 1935) for a prime example.
Zulus?
Wow, great discussion. Just want to add, remember, we're all the 'bad guy' collectively. Power corrupts, without fail. Sure a phenomenal 'good guy' leader pops up in history sometimes (as best as we can tell), but ultimately, we're living in a world ruled by the father of lies.