Politics Aussie Fascists and (neo)Nazis

[The Sultan]

Each capital city needs a bunch of flaming queens (not trying to be offensive but used for context) on speed dial that when these masked hero’s do one of their pride matches the flaming queens join in.

 

[Crankyhawk]

If the allies had have left him alone when he annexed half of Poland and not declared war in response, he would have sought to solidify an alliance with the UK (an Anglo German alliance) against the Soviet Union, before invading Russia to put an end to the 'Judeo Bolshevik' threat of the 'Asiatic Hordes' (and to create living space, and secure resources for the German Reich).

While an alliance with the UK would never have happened (barring a Fascist revolution in the UK) he still would have invaded Russia (just like he did during ww2), and the likely outcome of that invasion would have been identical to what happened in the Eastern Front of WW2 (a comprehensive ass whooping).

He probably would have (again) underestimated the Russians, and (again) would have lost.

Hitler was an ethnic nationalist. He wanted a single unified Ethno-State for ethnic Germanic peoples (and was more than happy for other 'races' to have their own Ethno-State as well; see his support for the Empire of Japan).

Not once did he ever express a desire for 'world domination' or anything remotely like that, and for everything evil and wrong with Hitler, he was generally pretty open about his motivations, goals and ideology (he followed through with literally everything he said he would do in Mein Kampf for example, including invading the Soviet Union for 'Living space').

In you're an ethnic nationalist, you support races having their own Ethno State. And not just your own race; you have to support that model for everyone.

Which is why Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam would often appear on Stage at KKK and White Nationalist meetings in the USA. Both the Black and White Nationalist groups supported each other in calling for a separate State for whites only and blacks only respectively.

On the first (invading Russia) if it was just a one front war hitler may not have overreached and tried to campaign through winter - and would not have had to split forces. So from a military or alternative history pov that would be a situation up for debate

On the second about having to support separate nations for other races I don’t think it necessarily is a need - hitler likely saw his own race as the only one deserving of a state and all others are lesser beings to be subjugated or removed

 

[Crankyhawk]

There's a pretty good case to be made that the Japanese were already beaten in WW2, and that the bombs did not need to fall on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The decision was made to flex for Russia, to ensure that a message was sent: we have these bombs, and while you might have them too we're more willing to use them.

From here, the death toll of those two bombs dropped is difficult to define precisely:

... with the largest population of supposedly military targets within the radius being at Hiroshima being considered to be around 20 thousand: they killed far, far more civilians than they did military.

It is certainly enough to make one question, who is the more insane?

It's a matter for historical dispute because you can find different arguments for and against the dropping of those bombs, but it's a picture painted by the better part of a century's since worth of American exceptionalism.

The alternative where bombs were not used - how long is it before Japan surrenders and how many die in the invasion of the home islands before they surrender? I think the death toll in that scenario is higher but it is unknown (unless there is evidence that Japan was about to immediately surrender before atom bomb used)

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yep.

Here is the final troop dispositions in Europe at the end of WW2:

If the Soviets wanted to (and Stalin and most Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries most definitely did want to), they could have easily overrun the US/ UK/ French forces in Europe and finally had their (European) Communist utopia they've always wanted (and that Marx advocated for).

The Western Allies managed to placate Stalin by handing him literally all of Eastern Europe (behind the wall) either directly (Konigsberg, now Kaliningrad) or indirectly via 'Soviet controlled rebuilding' in Poland, East Germany, Ukraine, Slovenia, Lithuania etc, and all of Manchuria (which they annexed off the Chinese, although it was occupied by the Japanese at that time).

In addition to handing over half of Europe to the Communists, they also sent the following message:

'We have this new kind of bomb, and your numerical superiority doesn't mean s**t anymore. Also we're no afraid to use it, even on massed civilian centers. Watch now for two demonstrations in Japan. Stand the * down.'

That worked (at least long enough for Stalin to go away and rebuild and strengthen his position, and develop a bomb of his own) and left us with the Cold war.



And as atrocious (and a clear war crime) as the Atomic bombings were, they pale in comparison to the firebombing of Tokyo (which killed between 80,000 and 130,000 civilians, burnt alive horribly), and the allied strategic bombing campaigns in places like Dresden and elsewhere.

The allied strategic bombing campaign deliberately killed between 800,000 to 1.6 million people (mostly civilians), and should the Nazis have won the war, would have seen Churchill, Truman, Roosevelt and others hang as war criminals for ordering it.

Allied bombing in response to previous German bombing is not a war crime

 

[Malifice]

Allied bombing in response to previous German bombing is not a war crime

Yes it can be.

And comparing the German air raids to the allied strategic bombing campaign (which deliberately went after civilians to 'break the spirit of Germany') is comparing apples to oranges for the most part.

 

[Gethelred]

The alternative where bombs were not used - how long is it before Japan surrenders and how many die in the invasion of the home islands before they surrender? I think the death toll in that scenario is higher but it is unknown (unless there is evidence that Japan was about to immediately surrender before atom bomb used)

When I initially studied it (at uni) I remember reading something from the Japanese side that stated they were on the edge of surrendering air supremacy to America prior to the bombs being dropped. America had fought them back in the Pacific; China had kicked them from Mainland Asia, between Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang and Mao's People's Army. An invasion may very well have costed lives on the American side, but the Japanese had significantly less army, munitions, navy, and barely any airforce to speak of by this point in WW2.

There were considerable factions within the Japanese parliament that were in favour of surrender, who wound up being the same people after the bombs dropped.

It's probably a question (or series of them) for the History forum. Might start or find a thread in there.

 

[FIGJAM]

Allied bombing in response to previous German bombing is not a war crime

People ******* love screaming 'war crime' nowadays!

It's almost as if there's an expectation of 'fair war', whereby everyone goes old school and goes to an open field to fight away from civilians, all sign personal liability waivers and use weapons made out of Nerf.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

People ******* love screaming 'war crime' nowadays!

It's almost as if there's an expectation of 'fair war', whereby everyone goes old school and goes to an open field to fight away from civilians, all sign personal liability waivers and use weapons made out of Nerf.

People ******* live streaming their 'war crimes' nowadays!

 

[demondavey]

People ******* love screaming 'war crime' nowadays!

It's almost as if there's an expectation of 'fair war', whereby everyone goes old school and goes to an open field to fight away from civilians, all sign personal liability waivers and use weapons made out of Nerf.

What are you referring to by nowadays?

 

[Gough]

People ******* love screaming 'war crime' nowadays!

It's almost as if there's an expectation of 'fair war', whereby everyone goes old school and goes to an open field to fight away from civilians, all sign personal liability waivers and use weapons made out of Nerf.

Bomber Command didn't miss out on medals by accident.

 

[demondavey]

humanising isn't the same as sympathising

we have a tendency to call anyone who does something bad a monster

you see it all the time even just with normal violent crime

it should be a scarier proposition to show that Hitler was human after all than some strange monster

because the first shows that the capacity is in all of us for this sort of behaviour

That’s a good post.

Fair play there.

 

[demondavey]

It sounds counter-intuitive, doesn't it? However I think the point Malifice is making is that painting humans as monsters, even if thoroughly earned, conceptually removes them from human agency. 'Monsterfication' makes some of us cursory glancers lose sight of the fallen human.

No, Adolf Hitler was all too human. Some of the path he chose was circumstantial but as beings of intellect we ALL have agency over our moral direction in life. We can choose to fight the hate circumstance might slap us around with, or we can give into it and fall into the abyss.

Good post.

 

[demondavey]

It's incredibly serious.

If we want to learn how to avoid making the mistakes of the past, its vital to look at the Nazi regime as humans (which they were) with human prejudices and human motivations.

Depicting them as moustache twirling monstrous villains hell bent on world domination totally misses the point, and gives us nothing to actually learn from.

People elected in a Nazi regime (who were open about what they were and what they were about), dobbed in neighbors to the Gestapo by the thousands, and were then complicit in a regime that orchestrated the murder of 6 million humans in concentration camps.

Humans did that. Which is why humanizing them is vital so we can understand how and why.

Fair point. Good point. Gives me a different way to look at it.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Yes it can be.

And comparing the German air raids to the allied strategic bombing campaign (which deliberately went after civilians to 'break the spirit of Germany') is comparing apples to oranges for the most part.

Was war crime even an accepted concept in ww2 times? Recall that it is not really useful to judge the actions of historical figures by todays standards (and Churchill would have been strung up if Germany won the war just in general principles of kill the leaders of the other side anyway)

What was the purpose of German air raids? Was there not the same intent to break the will of English civilians? It’s not like they exclusively hit military areas (and industrial areas are legitimate in my opinion and these are often near civilian areas)

 

[FIGJAM]

What are you referring to by nowadays?

Go and read the Ukraine and Gaza threads. It's rife!

Ultimately though, it's modern urban warfare. Same goes for the Blitz and the bombing of Dresden.

Don't know why people need to keep attaching "war crime" on every event in conflict.

 

[Gralin]

Go and read the Ukraine and Gaza threads. It's rife!

Ultimately though, it's modern urban warfare. Same goes for the Blitz and the bombing of Dresden.

Don't know why people need to keep attaching "war crime" on every event in conflict.

Probably because of all the war crimes that get committed

 

[FIGJAM]

Probably because of all the war crimes that get committed

Yeah, like in every war ever!

 

[Gralin]

Yeah, like in every war ever!

Not a good thing

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Yeah, like in every war ever!

No, it's the first time we have seen tiktoks of war crimes being posted by the people committing those war crimes.

 

[barreness]

The alternative where bombs were not used - how long is it before Japan surrenders and how many die in the invasion of the home islands before they surrender? I think the death toll in that scenario is higher but it is unknown (unless there is evidence that Japan was about to immediately surrender before atom bomb used)

If you want a two hour in depth timeline

A lot of post hoc justification for dropping them

 

[Crankyhawk]

Not a good thing

Obvious things occur in war.

 

[Malifice]

Was war crime even an accepted concept in ww2 times?

Dude, we literally conducted the Nuremberg trials at the conclusion of the war.

Recall that it is not really useful to judge the actions of historical figures by todays standards (and Churchill would have been strung up if Germany won the war just in general principles of kill the leaders of the other side anyway)

That was not how things worked.

What was the purpose of German air raids?

Targeting military infrastructure. They switched to indiscriminate bombing after the Allies did the same, but to nowhere near the same extent.

Im not saying the Luftwaffe was innocent of indiscriminate bombing mind you. But it was nowhere near the extent of Allied strategic bombing, that deliberately dropped incendiaries and 2 nukes on civilian centers killing over million women and kids.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Dude, we literally conducted the Nuremberg trials at the conclusion of the war.



That was not how things worked.



Targeting military infrastructure. They switched to indiscriminate bombing after the Allies did the same, but to nowhere near the same extent.

Im not saying the Luftwaffe was innocent of indiscriminate bombing mind you. But it was nowhere near the extent of Allied strategic bombing, that deliberately dropped incendiaries and 2 nukes on civilian centers killing over million women and kids.

Yes as the end of the war and iirc all directed after the evidence of the holocaust- ie a new concept for the time.

And there was no consideration at the time that the allied bombing was a war crime else the leaders would have stood trial. Which gets to the bigger point of war crime is really pointless distinction as it mainly gets prosecuted against the losers in war.

Winner’s reward is to write the history- nullified now (and a good thing to) with social media but rise of deepfake will make this harder

The nukes aren’t part of the argument (that’s the us v Japan and the question is what would the military and civilian cost needed for Japanese surrender - as you said earlier an interesting question for a history thread)

 

[Malifice]

Yes as the end of the war and iirc all directed after the evidence of the holocaust- ie a new concept for the time.

No, there were very clear rules of war at the time regarding war crimes.

Here is literally a manual that was issued to US Soldiers that discusses some of them:

WW2 Basic Rules of Land Warfare | WW2 US Medical Research Centre.

There was the first Geneva conventions, the two Hauge conventions, and a number of treaties that expressly prohibited the deliberate bombing by 'land or sea' of civilian targets.

Read here:

Aerial bombardment and international law - Wikipedia

The legal loophole relied on by the allies (and the Germans to a lesser extent) was that the laws did not mention 'Air' power (because they were signed up to before the invention of the military aircraft) even though the intent of the laws is clear.

And there was no consideration at the time that the allied bombing was a war crime

Yes, there was. It was heavily debated at the time (internally by the Allies), and the Germans frequently raised protest of the bombings as war crimes in diplomatic channels.

Stop talking about stuff you dont know anything about, and please have a read of the following:

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

 

[Crankyhawk]

No, there were very clear rules of war at the time regarding war crimes.

Here is literally a manual that was issued to US Soldiers that discusses some of them:

WW2 Basic Rules of Land Warfare | WW2 US Medical Research Centre.

There was the first Geneva conventions, the two Hauge conventions, and a number of treaties that expressly prohibited the deliberate bombing by 'land or sea' of civilian targets.

Read here:

Aerial bombardment and international law - Wikipedia

The legal loophole relied on by the allies (and the Germans to a lesser extent) was that the laws did not mention 'Air' power (because they were signed up to before the invention of the military aircraft) even though the intent of the laws is clear.



Yes, there was. It was heavily debated at the time (internally by the Allies), and the Germans frequently raised protest of the bombings as war crimes in diplomatic channels.

Stop talking about stuff you dont know anything about, and please have a read of the following:

Strategic bombing during World War II - Wikipedia

Well part of being here is to be educated. And your reference states it was the Germans who targeted civilians first. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to demand restraint from the allies imo (we can’t even get restraint occurring in the modern era with wildly asymmetric forces)