235
236

World War 2 was like Predators versus Humans (self.badhistory)

Das_Schnabeltier が 投稿

Does anyone else think in the long run Predators aren't much of a threat to humans?

They seem to have very little technological progress since we've got evidence of them having the same same level of technology over thousands of years. In the same period humans have improved technologically enormously.

They show too much respect for notions of chivalry. Humans do sort of believe in this stuff, but only when it suits them.

E.g. consider humans with Predator level technology against a civilisation with dark ages technology. It'd be a slaughter. In fact in the New World the Spanish had a much smaller technological advantage of the Aztecs and yet it was still a slaughter.

I.e. as usual societies that pride themselves on being 'warrior races' aren't actually that effective as warriors. You're better off concentrating on technological advance and adopting a ruthlessly pragmatic approach to dealing with other cultures.

Incidentally there's one example of a human civilisation at a slight technological disadvantage totally defeating one that prided itself on being a warrior race - the US and UK versus Nazi Germany in WWII. The allies used relatively low technology with great ruthlessness - Lancaster and B29 bombers against population targets. They also mass manufactured Sherman tanks. Individually a Sherman was no match for a German Panzer. Still the difference in production rates meant the Germans were slowly Zerg rushed by the greater numbers of mass manufactured Allied crap.

The Nazis didn't regard the war in the East as a place for chivalry - they saw it as a war of annihilation against subhumans - but it seems they did sort of regard the war in the West as being a fight against equals with whom they hoped to conclude a negotiated peace. And they seemed to be genuinely horrified when Churchill and Harris carpet bombed them with great enthusiasm to force unconditional surrender despite that.

Now the difference is that the UK didn't regard the war against Germany as being in any way glorious or chivalric but rather about industrialized slaughter aimed at trashing German industry. Which worked very well indeed.

I.e. subpar technology and a cynical view of war works. Advanced technology and an overly romanticised view of honourable, heroic warriors doesn't.

Why it's bad history:

  • Describes Lancaster and B29 bombers as "low-technology." State-of-the-art technology that served way into post-war times.
  • Claims a Sherman was no match for a German Panzer. Panzer just means "tank." I'm sure a Sherman could have taken on a Panzer II
  • Claims Allied success in WW2 was due to "zerg rushing with crap." Whereas Allied technology was absolutely on par especially in later stages of the war.
  • UK followed a strategy of "industrialized slaughter", whatever that means. That term would rather apply to the Holocaust.
  • Allied victory was thanks to "subpar technology" and a cynical view of war.

Bonus: Another redditor suggested this as /r/badhistory material. The Redditor in question's response:

/r/badhistory[1] is more like 'Oh no, some people are interpreting history in non bleeding heart liberal approved ways'. We BARBECUED those Germans and we LIKED it.

Sauce: http://np.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/comments/37u4v6/predator_dark_ages_2015_720p/crq0c5a

BONUS: OP APPEARED TO DEFEND HIMSELF - SCROLL DOWN TO CHALLENGE HIM

上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 429
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 108ポイント109ポイント  (48子コメント)

Whereas Allied technology was absolutely on par especially in later stages of the war.

Allied technology was superior to German technology in several areas throughout the war. I don't think anybody would claim that Germany had, for instance, a superior carrier fleet, and while wehraboos might fellate the Tiger and Panther, it's difficult to claim that the designs of the Panzer III and IV are superior to the T-34 in terms of economy and armor layout.

Hell, in industrial terms the Soviets were light years ahead of the Germans. Over the course of the war they managed to reduce the production time of the T-34 from something like 8,000 man hours down to 3,000 man hours...while drafting all of their young engineers and factory workers to fight in said T-34s.

And we really need not even go into how utterly outmatched Germany was by the US in industrial terms.

[–]pronhaul2012literally beria 103ポイント104ポイント  (11子コメント)

even the panther and tiger had some pretty serious issues.

the tiger, for example, was a breakthrough weapon that lacked sufficient range to actually do any breakthroughs (70 mile operational range ayyy lmao nazis u even tryin?) and the panther apparently misunderstood hitler's ideas on jews and applied them to transmissions instead.

[–]Kronenburg_Korra 63ポイント64ポイント  (4子コメント)

the panther apparently misunderstood hitler's ideas on jews and applied them to transmissions instead.

MY.FUCKING.SIDES

[–]Stellar_DuckJust another Spineless Chamberlain 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's perfect.

[–]DaftPrinceI learnt all my history from Sabaton 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

The Panther was a tool in the industrial gearbox-killing regime.

[–]ciderczarUnrepentant Ouiaboo 36ポイント37ポイント  (4子コメント)

Don't forget the glorious hand-cranked turrets of early Tigers. It's a tank and an exercise!

[–]blasto_blastocyst 38ポイント39ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's the Tigercizer™ - get those shoulders toned for the perfect Heil Hitler.

[–]Brohammad_AliSherman did nothing wrong. 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

Gotta show off them ubermenschen delts.

コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

      [–]ThyrotoxicSozin did nothing wrong 43ポイント44ポイント  (9子コメント)

      Also the whole nuclear weapons thing...

      [–]Eggfibre 85ポイント86ポイント  (8子コメント)

      The Germans could have had those too, they're just too noble to use them. Not like those ruthless liberal democracies...

      [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 63ポイント64ポイント  (2子コメント)

      The Germans could have had those too, they were just too anti semitic to keep the necessary physicists.

      [–]TSA_jijDegenerate faker of history 9ポイント10ポイント  (1子コメント)

      You Amerikaner pigs are just lucky ve didn't develop Wunderwaffen based on ze Welteislehre

      [–]SweetKeytarSolo 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Do you know what keelled the dinasauhs? Ze EIS AGE!

      [–]hubbabenPoland shouldn't have dressed so sluttily 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

      There was an old anime miniseries that basically had a German pilot allow a German B17 (they ran out of their own planes apparently but we're able to supply him with a Ta-152???) because it had s fully functional nuclear bomb on it but he didn't want it to be used or something? I'll try to remember what it was called.

      [–]applesauce91 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

      That sounds like an idiotic series.

      [–]hubbabenPoland shouldn't have dressed so sluttily 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

      It was kind of odd. It was made by a Japanese artist fairly soon after the war if I remember correctly, and I guess miniseries was a bad way to describe it. It had 3 separate episodes, one about our Greenpeace Ta-152 pilot, one about a "Cherry Blossom" suicide rocket pilot, and one about....something to do with motorcycles? There was a whole lot of anti nuke messaging for obvious reasons.

      [–]GrassWaterDirtHorse 36ポイント37ポイント  (17子コメント)

      Allied tank technology had surpassed German tanks by the end of the war. The IS-3, M26, Centurion, and the T-44 were all operational at the end of the war and vastly outclassed even the German paper designs.

      [–]frezikLincoln is literally the guy who killed Hitler 32ポイント33ポイント  (10子コメント)

      Do "German paper designs" include the ending boss fight tank that was the Ratte?

      Never mind that the Ratte would be a big fat target for bombers.

      [–]GrassWaterDirtHorse 19ポイント20ポイント  (0子コメント)

      No, I'm considering the 105mm gun proposal for the King Tiger, the 8.8mm L71 for the Panther 2, and a world where the Jagdtiger could be mounted with the 128mm cannon in sufficient quantities (IRL, there was a shortage of 128mm guns so most Jagdtigers ended up with the Tiger 2's 8.8 L71 gun).

      Rate would be cool to have but it's closer to a Battleship with wheels than a tank

      [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 15ポイント16ポイント  (7子コメント)

      The Ratte was not cool at all, and even the Nazis knew it. Even Assad's barrel bombs could hit that as it moved. Slow, expensive, trashes roads if it even fits on them...what is to like?

      [–]seaturtlesallthewayWikipedia is peer-viewed. 21ポイント22ポイント  (6子コメント)

      It's bigger. Therefore better.

      [–]phoenixbasileusManchukuo was totes a legitimate state 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I would love to see the RAF's face when they saw that. Fuck they could probably reliably hit the fucker with a Grand Slam, that's how stupidly big and slow it would have been.

      [–]EvanHarperDon't Robespierre that joint, man. 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I think the essential strategy for dealing with the Ratte would have been to take absolutely no action to damage it, thus denying the enemy huge volumes of fuel, lubricating oil, and scrap metal to no military disadvantage

      コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

        [–]DaftPrinceI learnt all my history from Sabaton 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

        You mean the P1000 self-entrenching fortress?

        [–]jimmiesunrustledA shill for Big Strategic Bombing 18ポイント19ポイント  (4子コメント)

        Hell, Allied tanks early in the war surpassed them if you go by the Wehraboo standard of "Tank with more armour and bigger gun caliber is best".

        I mean not only did the Matilda 2 and Char B1 Bis have more armour than anything it faced, they had a 40mm/47mm gun respectively. That's 3/10 whole millimeters more than the Panzer 3s it fought! Impossible to beat except by zerg rushing /s

        [–]disguise117genocide = crimes against humanity = war crimes 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

        Glorious Soviet KV-2 was clearly best tank of early war.

        [–]Firnin 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

        The KV-2! Best tank of all time! Protected by the souls of dead Soviet heroes! The glorious 152mm howitzer! Shells guided by the hand of Lenin himself reaching from beyond the grave to kill enemies of the state! Fueled by the agonized souls of dissidents!

        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

          [–]buy_a_pork_bunListened to Hilter's Generals 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

          To be fair the Char had an awful layout and a frankly useless communication system

          コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

            [–]Townsend_Harris 7ポイント8ポイント  (5子コメント)

            Allied technology was superior to German technology in several areas throughout the war.

            I tend to think that only two really mattered (vis a vie Germany/Italy)

            1- Logistics

            2- Long range strategic/heavy bombers

            Hell, in industrial terms the Soviets were light years ahead of the Germans. Over the course of the war they managed to reduce the production time of the T-34 from something like 8,000 man hours down to 3,000 man hours...while drafting all of their young engineers and factory workers to fight in said T-34s.

            Whats the source for production times? Also AFAIK the Soviet Union didn't go in much for drafting people already working in factories but rather grabbed fresh 18ish year olds and rural/kolhoz types instead.

            [–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

            https://books.google.com/books?id=feIBwIK6DA0C&pg

            Page 17 notes it in a side blurb. I've heard a book called "Accounting for the War" gives specific details, but I've never been able to find it in physical form, and the google preview cuts out the appendix with the statistics in question.

            [–]Townsend_Harris 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

            "Accounting for the War"

            cool thanks, maybe I can find some primary sources while I'm still in Russia.

            [–]yjupahk 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

            There was no technological advantage to the allies in either area. Germany simply couldn't afford heavy bombers.

            There were areas where the Allied advantage was very wide, e.g. microwave radars (critical), electronics generally and especially their practical application ("Oboe" precision bombing, the "battle of the beams" etc.), the "VT" proximity fuze, aircraft carrier design philosophy (the US) and atomic weapons.

            [–]Townsend_Harris 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

            I'd say not being able to afford the same kinds and amounts of weapons as your enemies might mean your enemies have an advantage in logistics. =)

            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

              [–]eighthgearOh, Allemagne-senpai! If you invade me there I'll... I'll-!!! 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

              it's difficult to claim that the designs of the Panzer III and IV are superior to the T-34 in terms of economy and armor layout.

              Armour layout, no, but the T-34 is probably just has heavily fellated as the Tiger. The crew layout of the T-34 was terrible - the two-man turret forced the poor gunner to also serve as the commander, ensuring that he would not be that good in either role. The three-man turret of the Panzer III and IV, with a loader, gunner, and commander, was a far better layout (the Sherman also had a three-man turret, as did the later T-34-85).

              Things were made even worse by the initial lack of a commander's cupola on the T-34's turret, which really made sure that T-34 crews had atrocious situational awareness. T-34's actually were available in large numbers even in 1941, but they performed very poorly against German tanks, despite the fact that those German tanks could not penetrate the T-34 save for at very close ranges (particularly at the rear). Later on, T-34's were given cupolas, and eventually a three-man turret with the T-34-85.

              People often overlook this deficiencies, simply because they prefer to focus on simple statistics like armour thickness. The T-34's faults are passed off simply as "ergonomic issues" and dismissed (presumably by people who have never sat in a tank). The fact is that the Panzer III and IV did significantly outperform the T-34 at the start of Barbarossa, despite lacking the ability to penetrate the T-34 in most normal situations.

              Of course, the T-34 was made in huge quantities, so its individual flaws matter less. Nonetheless, those flaws were real, and they are often overlooked when the T-34 is discussed.

              コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                [–]alynnidalarSanskrit helped the aliens build the pyramids. 77ポイント78ポイント  (18子コメント)

                That's a new one for the accusations page!

                For interest's sake, we can't possibly be bleeding-heart liberals claiming that America BARBECUED those Germans and we LIKED it because we are:

                • "a [pro-American] shithole."
                • run by the NSA
                • been "coopted" by "slanderers and agitators" into a "reactionary revisionist sub, almost akin to those like /r/Republican, /r/Whiterights." (which I think means we're uber-conservative)
                • the "NATO image repair unit."
                • "censoring smug Nazis"
                • an "anti-German circlejerk."

                Also bronies, once, for no apparent reason.

                [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 66ポイント67ポイント  (0子コメント)

                We are also fervent Hawaiian nationalists. May the volcano god bestow upon ye many dreadnaughts.

                [–]Sarge_WardOfficial Subreddit Historian: Harry Turtledove History 21ポイント22ポイント  (9子コメント)

                Do you have the link to the Bronies one? That one just sounds gosh darn hilarious!

                [–]alynnidalarSanskrit helped the aliens build the pyramids. 27ポイント28ポイント  (8子コメント)

                I'll do you one better, here's the whole list!

                Bronies is #76, I think it was just an angry PM to the mods after somebody got banned, but it's still such a weird non sequitur...

                [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                Mostly accusations of being liberal "social justice warriors", so the comparisons to /r/Whiterights are bizarre.

                [–]unimaginative_IDMozart x Salieri OTP 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Such an awful accusation! How dare they imply that we're all a part of an esoteric internet subculture!

                [–]Bloody-VikingsThe Nazis couldn't handle Uncle Joe's nuts 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                That one seems so completely out of place.

                [–]lmortisxAmerican Protestants killed mysticism. 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                That list inspired me.

                [–]AutoModerator[M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Hi! Unfortunately, your link(s) to Reddit is not a no-participation (i.e. http://np.reddit.com or https://np.reddit.com) link. As per Rule 1a of this subreddit, we require all links to Reddit to be non-participation links to keep users from brigading. Because of this, this submission/comment has been removed. Please feel free to edit this with the required non-participation link(s); once you do so, we can approve the post immediately.

                (You can easily do this by replacing the 'www' part with 'np' in the URL. Make sure you keep the http:// or https:// part!)

                Note: as part of my programming, a mod message regarding this removal has been sent to the moderators here, so there's no need to message us!

                I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

                [–]pumpkincatChurchill was a Nazi 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

                I love when the nutters call us statist, as if it is the most damning insult of all time. Ooooo you support social programs that aid the poor and a regulated economy... you bastard.

                [–]Colonel_BlimpO Fisher-san, give me your Dreadnought! 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Once again Britain gets away with strategic bombing. BWAHAHAHAHA! THE BRITISH IMAGE REPAIR UNIT IS UNSTOPPABLE!

                [–]TSA_jijDegenerate faker of history 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                British Traditions: -25% Aggressive Expansion impact, +5 Diplomatic Reputation

                [–]Master-Thiefwears pajamas and is therefore a fascist 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

                Yes, it is well known that studying history leads to watching a cartoon about talking ponies discovering the elements of how not to be a jerk.

                [–]blasto_blastocyst 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                It's weird how it happens though.

                コメントをもっと表示する (3 返事)

                  [–]EmperorOfMeowOttoman cannons can't melt Byzantine walls; 1453 was inside job 134ポイント135ポイント  (30子コメント)

                  Now I'm sure the bleeding heart pseudo intellectuals of /r/badhistory will write walls of text denouncing this, for the simple reason that the notion that liberal democracies win because they are more ruthless and less prone to silly delusions is offensive to them. Well most of the reason I post here is to offend people like that, so I don't mind.

                  Well, and the main reason I read and post here is because I find people like you funny, dear OP.

                  The UK and US did nothing wrong in WWII. And Japan and Germany did nothing right.

                  I... you... what?

                  [–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 88ポイント89ポイント  (21子コメント)

                  liberal democracies win because they are more ruthless and less prone to silly delusions is offensive to them.

                  u wot m8

                  U WOT

                  [–]EmperorOfMeowOttoman cannons can't melt Byzantine walls; 1453 was inside job 91ポイント92ポイント  (13子コメント)

                  He has a PhD from the University of Reddit and is a tenured professor of Make-believe Politics and Historical Boogaloo. I'm sure he knows what he's talking about. I mean, we all know the Allies were the ruthless ones, poor Axis guys were just gentle souls.

                  [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 103ポイント104ポイント  (12子コメント)

                  No one has ever been more misunderstood.

                  [–]Cpt_Tripps 33ポイント34ポイント  (10子コメント)

                  Oh god that second line... I was prepared for some kind of "likes animals is a good guy" strawman argument, nope.

                  [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 28ポイント29ポイント  (8子コメント)

                  Truly the dankest of maymays.

                  [–]Cpt_Tripps 9ポイント10ポイント  (7子コメント)

                  correct me if I'm wrong but it's pronounced Me mays.

                  [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                  Actually, it's may-moos. I should know; I am the king of advice animals and rage comics.

                  Now let me explain to you why Hitler was the good guy in Bad Luck Brian form.

                  [–]Cpt_Tripps 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

                  uh hitler wasn't that bad he did kill hitler after all Kappa

                  [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

                  ...I don't get it. You're going to have to explain it to me. I thought John Wilkes Booth killed him?

                  OH WAIT I'M THINKING OF A DIFFERENT DICTATOR

                  [–]nihil_novi_sub_soleW. T. Sherman burned the Library of Alexandria 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                  Established wisdom on /r/magicskyfairy holds that it's "may-mays".

                  [–]TSA_jijDegenerate faker of history 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                  If God doesn't real how come /r/dankchristianmemes

                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                      [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

                      Maybe I'm tired. Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am.

                      BUT WHAT THE FUCK IS HE TRYING TO SAY?

                      [–]myfriendscallmethorLindisfarne was an inside job. 26ポイント27ポイント  (2子コメント)

                      I think he's trying to articulate is that we here at /r/badhistory would disagree with the idea that liberal democracies are more ruthless than fascist dictatorships and that liberal democracies, unlike a fascist dictatorships, don't believe in "silly delusions" like world conquest, etc.

                      [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Sure, living in Nazi Germany was the bee's knees!

                      Enabling Act? Night of the Long Knives? Huh? What are you talking about?

                      [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      I think he says 'ruthless' when he means pragmatic.

                      [–]DuceGiharm 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

                      I like how he considers the allied attempt to stomp out Germany industry a war crime, but ignores that Germany attacked British civilians with the express purpose of killing and causing as much damage as possible to traumatize the population into surrender!

                      [–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      There's also the millions of dead civilians on the eastern front.

                      [–]disguise117genocide = crimes against humanity = war crimes 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      The only context that makes any sort of sense in is if OP is under the impression that the USSR was a liberal democracy.

                      [–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

                      Why would a bleeding heart liberal be offended w/ someone calling war ruthless and terrible?

                      コメントをもっと表示する (7 返事)

                        [–]ciderczarUnrepentant Ouiaboo 62ポイント63ポイント  (12子コメント)

                        Whereas Allied technology was absolutely on par especially in later stages of the war.

                        Apparently radar and Bletchley Park don't real, either.

                        And they seemed to be genuinely horrified when Churchill and Harris carpet bombed them with great enthusiasm to force unconditional surrender despite that.

                        Did they forget the Blitz?

                        [–]GrassWaterDirtHorse 37ポイント38ポイント  (7子コメント)

                        A lot of people only remember the gallant Spitfires and Bf 109s of the Battle of Britain and forget about the Stukas and Heinkel 111s that did all the bombings.

                        And the Bf 110 heavy fighter and Hurricane were also largely forgotten as well as a host of other anti shipping fighters and wonky aircraft like the Defiant. Those didn't look good enough for propoganda

                        [–]TheAlmightySnarkFoodtrucks are like Caligula, only then with less fornication 10ポイント11ポイント  (6子コメント)

                        What about the Blenheim? That was pretty much the only part in the war when it was really prominently featured in the sky before the bigger lancaster'ish bombers took over, right?

                        [–]GrassWaterDirtHorse 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

                        Correct. The Blenheim was originally designed as a fast bomber i n the '30s, but it couldn't outrun monoplanes like the Bf 109 and didn't have the structural integrity and survivability of the heavier Wellington or Lancaster bombers. The Blenheim design was improved, and the very successful Beaufort bomber and the Beaufighter heavy fighter that were derived from the Blenheim were able to take on the duties of the Blenheim for the rest of the war.

                        As a side note, the usage of the .303 round the British used for their Browning or Vickers machine guns just wasn't enough for advanced German aircraft. The .303 had a distressingly short range compared to 20mm cannons and didn't have the power to shoot through the cockpit glass of German fighters. Why the British didn't upgrade to .50 cal for their bombers is beyond me.

                        [–]PearlClawFort Sumter was asking for it 5ポイント6ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        Given the success rates of bomber turrets in shooting down enemy aircraft I doubt it made much difference.

                        [–]yjupahk 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Kills aren't everything. The risk of getting shot in the face does nothing for your aim or your ability to perform mental arithmetic which was needed to use the sights.

                        [–]seaturtlesallthewayWikipedia is peer-viewed. 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        I think the RAF considered that, and decided that cheaper ammo (make one cartridge a gazillion times, instead of two cartridges a billion times each) and simpler logistics (that plane takes what kind of ammo and how much?) were more better.

                        [–]khosikulutenured lvl 600 fern entity 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Coventry and Rotterdam were totally false-flag operations. (Seriously, the scourging of Rotterdam alone just to horrify the Dutch should be enough to put a spike through that myth.)

                        [–]mrtacoswildride 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        Of course Coventry was a false flag. How else do you explain the missing Bishop's birdstump?

                        Checkmate, historians.

                        [–]runedeadthAI'm a idealist. Like Hitler. 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        Radar? You mean lots of carrots and good Ol' British know-how.

                        [–]flyingdragon8Anti-Materialist Marxist 59ポイント60ポイント  (8子コメント)

                        THIS FUCKING GUY

                        US and UK had far more extreme war arms [aims?] (at the end of the war unconditional surrender of their opponents versus merely forcing them to accept a new status quo with limits on their influence) than Japan and Germany.

                        ...

                        more extreme ... than Japan and Germany

                        More extreme than annexing other countries, liquidating entire populations, enslaving of others, forced cultural assimilation. DAFUQ

                        [–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 33ポイント34ポイント  (2子コメント)

                        The holocaust doesn't count because it isn't in any of the popular WW2 games. Rape of Nanking? That's commie-propaganda. Nobody can resist those kawai Japanese.

                        [–]blasto_blastocyst 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        It was just a live-action tentacle-porn that got out of hand.

                        [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        With penises instead of tentacles. You know, like most Japanese pornography, but without the blurring.

                        [–]EnleatViking plate armor. 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        And in this thread they say they're not portraying Germany as being downtrodden by the mercyless Brittish.

                        What the fuck.

                        [–]_watchingLincoln only fought the Civil War to free the Irish 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

                        What is Generalplan Ost?

                        [–]pumpkincatChurchill was a Nazi 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                        German's war aims included eating up a bunch of eastern europe, killing a shit ton of Russians and Pols, and exterminating the Jews. But ya know, that was totally mild compared to the goals of the allies like trying to get Germany to go home and call it a day.

                        コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                          [–]BritainOpPlsNerfParty like its 1939 43ポイント44ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          /r/shitwehraboossay

                          I'm cross posting OP.

                          [–]khosikulutenured lvl 600 fern entity 38ポイント39ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          "Slowly Zerg rushed." This has got to be a contender for the single most self-unaware act of internal contradiction for today.

                          [–]BritainOpPlsNerfParty like its 1939 17ポイント18ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          3 pool w/ 1 drone ayyyy

                          [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 26ポイント27ポイント  (5子コメント)

                          Describes Lancaster and B29 bombers as "low-technology."

                          I couldn't read beyond that part...

                          [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 31ポイント32ポイント  (4子コメント)

                          Yes, the B-29 Superfortress, the first mass-produced bomber with a pressurized cockpit, and the first (and so far) only bomber to deploy nuclear weapons in war, was low-technology.

                          But the Heinkel He-111 was srsly c00l tho. Had a sexy bubble canopy, that the filthy gaijin untermensch Allies totally ripped off.

                          [–]misunderstandgapPre-Marx, Marx, Post-Marx studies. All three fields of history. 12ポイント13ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          The B-29, which had remote-controlled turrets slewed by a central fire-control computer with turret rangefinding radar and ground-imaging radar, to allow bombing through overcast? The B-29, which required new aircraft to be designed to fight it?

                          [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 17ポイント18ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Fire-control computer?

                          Could it run Skyrim?

                          I thought not.

                          [–]TheHuscarlGavrilo Princip killed more people than Genghis Khan 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Yes, the B-29 Superfortress, the first mass-produced bomber with a pressurized cockpit, and the first (and so far) only bomber to deploy nuclear weapons in war, was low-technology.

                          The people flying them just didn't have the right warrior spirit.

                          [–]ChihueySophie "Erwin Rommel" Scholl 50ポイント51ポイント  (14子コメント)

                          This is some all-pro badhistory. Just complete wacko.

                          [–]flyingdragon8Anti-Materialist Marxist 38ポイント39ポイント  (7子コメント)

                          Nah dude he was mostly spot on, just picked the wrong movie. WW2 was really more like Mean Girls. Hitler is Regina George, Konoe is Gretchen Wiener, Mussolini is Karen Smith, FDR is Tina Fey, Churchill is Lizzy Caplan, Stalin is Lindsay Lohan, Jiang Jie Shi is Damian, De Gaulle is Glenn Coco.

                          EDIT: Mao Ze Dong is Kevin G.

                          [–]DonaldFDraperJe suis Charlie. 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          You go Glenn Coco!

                          (Also, I don't want to equate the stunning and high calibre acting of Lizzy Caplan with Churchill)

                          [–]thirtysevenandahalf 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                          You go, De Gaulle!

                          [–]flyingdragon8Anti-Materialist Marxist 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

                          Stop trying to make the Great Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere happen! It's not going to happen!

                          [–]phoenixbasileusManchukuo was totes a legitimate state 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                          Now people are looking at me in the university library like I'm crazy

                          コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                            コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                              [–]elos_Literally the Treaty of Versailles 44ポイント45ポイント  (27子コメント)

                              Claims a Sherman was no match for a German Panzer. Panzer just means "tank." I'm sure a Sherman could have taken on a Panzer II

                              The Sherman was, with the T-34, superior to every single German tank created until the Panzer IV. Only the Panzer IV, on paper, was equal but de facto it was edged out due to at that point in the war lower quality metals and tank crews. The STuG was actually a wonderful armored vehicle too, again, it was a tank destroyer not a main battle tank and even then the Sherman did quite well against it.

                              A Sherman with the standard 75mm cannon could penetrate a Panzer IV over 1000m. With the 76mm upgrade it could penetrate the frontal armor of a Tiger at nearly the same range along with the Panther.

                              [–]BritainOpPlsNerfParty like its 1939 30ポイント31ポイント  (14子コメント)

                              It was arguably superior to the Panzer IV as well in all but the ability to reach out and touch someone. In terms of armor they were actually about comparable until the Pz. IV J - but the cost of extra armor came with the caveat of greatly simplified production and no electric turret. The Sherman had alot of tactical trouble against the Panther, that I won't deny. The Panther, tactically, was near the top of the food chain, but had numerous strategic and logistical issues that rightly ruin its reputation. Tanks are made to manovuer; any limitation therein to its strategic range and endurance is a strong indictment of a medium tank's main strength, the ability to carry significant firepower far and fast.

                              In terms of mobility, maybe the Pz IV H - the quintessential version, gets a slight advantage in off-road capability. Shermans had greater top speed, greater strategic range (and the Panzer IV's wasn't unimpressive to begin with), a higher FOV sight (not better per se, but easier for a Commander to acquire targets) and could carry a significantly larger amount of ammunition. The M4A3, which had wet storage to help prevent catastrophic destruction when hit, was still able to often carry a combat load of about 45 AP/30 HE each, and that's a conservative loadout.

                              [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              I don't think you can really claim that the PzKpfw IV or Sherman was better... You have to talk about years and models.

                              The Sherman had amazing logistics in its favor, though. That's for sure.

                              [–]BritainOpPlsNerfParty like its 1939 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

                              I clearly talk about models; the H and J are the primary rivals of the Sherman in the ETO. You're right though.

                              [–]tankbuster183 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                              Excellent point, and it illustrates what tank guys (like myself) usually argue about. It's easy to get into the mindset that the Tiger/Panther is a better tank head to head vs a Sherman...but battles/campaigns aren't fought that way, video games are. Offensives are supported by artillery, airpower, different maneuvers, weather, a myriad of circumstances.

                              [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                              Video games are not fought like that either, necessarily. Even War Thunder has air strikes and artillery, and that is far from accurate.

                              コメントをもっと表示する (9 返事)

                                [–]Taschi420 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

                                I think he - like many other people - thinks there were no German tanks besides the Tiger and Panther.

                                [–]Cpt_Tripps 32ポイント33ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                Listen I don't know shit about tanks but I have played company of heroes about 1000 times and let me tell you the German tanks are way better than the allied tanks.

                                [–]Taschi420 10ポイント11ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                The Germans don't get a rocket launcher on tank thingy, though. :(

                                [–]TheAlmightySnarkFoodtrucks are like Caligula, only then with less fornication 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                I think he - like many other people - thinks there were no German tanks besides the Tiger and Panther.

                                Which is a shame, I find the 1939 to 1942 desert campaign vastly more interesting then the whole western front on pretty much any point. You get quite the dynamic when you mix in all the different forces(British/ANZAC vs German/Italian).

                                コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                  [–]seaturtlesallthewayWikipedia is peer-viewed. 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                  it was a tank destroyer

                                  Actually, it was an assault gun (Sturm Geschütz), so more comparable to an infantry support tank like the Churchill or Sherman.

                                  It just so happens that its gun and low silhouette made it excellent in an anti-tank role, too, where the Germans were lacking, since the PaK 36 was so superior to Allied armor, that it wrapped around reality and became total crap.

                                  [–]Tonkarz 46ポイント47ポイント  (63子コメント)

                                  That he'd accuse /r/badhistory of all places of being "bleeding heart liberal" suggests just how far right this guy is. Though also characterising Nazi Germany as poor downtrodden victim of the cruel British was another clue.

                                  [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 32ポイント33ポイント  (57子コメント)

                                  Academia tends to lean heavily left...

                                  [–]Rittermeisterunusually well armed humanitarian group 59ポイント60ポイント  (26子コメント)

                                  I thought I was heavily left until I came on reddit and met honest-to-God Communists.

                                  [–]alynnidalarSanskrit helped the aliens build the pyramids. 32ポイント33ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                  I thought I was pretty conservative by European standards (meaning I'm slightly center of the right in the US), and then I discovered there's monarchists.

                                  [–]MBarry829As decreed by Father Abraham 47ポイント48ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                  You haven't lived until you've gotten into a conversation with an American monarchist.

                                  [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 17ポイント18ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                  Huzzawha...?

                                  How is that even a thing? No one has any claim to "the crown of the US".

                                  [–]ciderczarUnrepentant Ouiaboo 43ポイント44ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  That is patently false.

                                  [–]khosikulutenured lvl 600 fern entity 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Well, Norton at least sort of deserved to have it.

                                  [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  How could I forget!

                                  [–]autowikibotLibrary of Alexandria 2.0 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  Emperor Norton:

                                  Joshua Abraham Norton (c. 1817–1818  – January 8, 1880), known as Emperor Norton, was a citizen of San Francisco, California who in 1859 proclaimed himself "Norton I, Emperor of the United States" and subsequently "Protector of Mexico".

                                  Born in England, Norton spent most of his early life in South Africa. He immigrated to San Francisco in 1849 after receiving a bequest of $40,000 (inflation adjusted to $1.2 to $1.5 million in 2014 US Dollars) from his father's estate, arriving aboard the steam yacht Hurlothrumbo. Norton initially made a living as a businessman, but he lost his fortune investing in Peruvian rice.

                                  After losing a lawsuit in which he tried to void his rice contract, Norton left San Francisco. He returned a few years later, laying claim to the position of Emperor of the United States. Although he had no political power, and his influence extended only so far as he was humoured by those around him, he was treated deferentially in San Francisco, and currency issued in his name was honoured in the establishments he frequented.

                                  Image i

                                  Interesting: Emperor Norton Records | Emperor Norton in popular culture | Singles and Beyond | First Album (Miss Kittin & The Hacker album)

                                  Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

                                  [–]MBarry829As decreed by Father Abraham 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                  I don't really member the particulars, but back in the day I remember getting into a nice solid conversation with a member of the ah.com boards who was one. He believed in the benevolent monarch concept, and denounced democracy. But not in the way that the insane dark enlightenment folks do- he saw the monarch's duties included the preservation of civil liberties. It was an odd one.

                                  [–]suddenly_mozzarellaactually a sentient carrot 28ポイント29ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                  My roommate in college used to say that the most fair and effective form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. He'd then qualify that statement by adding that it's also the most imaginary form of government.

                                  [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  The "enlightened despot" and all that.

                                  I don't think he's wrong on either count.

                                  [–]Knappsterbot 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                  I'm pretty sure I could handle the benevolent dictator role, I'm just gonna need to take over the military for a little while and take out any dissenters and totally relinquish military control I promise

                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                    [–]yoshiKUncultured savage since 476 AD 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                    I have, as soon as I raise the army of the damned.

                                    コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                      [–]GaiusPompeius 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      Are they anything like Ignatius J. Reilly from "A Confederacy of Dunces"? I really would like to see that.

                                      [–]GoyimsIt was about Egyptian States' Rights 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      hi

                                      [–]flyingdragon8Anti-Materialist Marxist 10ポイント11ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                      Reddit's political disposition comes and goes. When I first made my account the site was overrun by vocal lolbertarian Paul fanatics, but these days they're basically resigned to circlejerk in their own subs. These days it's the far left that's really vocal, to the point that you will find non-ironic comments literally calling for Red Terror getting upvoted in /r/truereddit.

                                      I wonder what the next revolutionary fad is going to be. Monarchism? Corporatism? Neo-pastorialism? Neo-neo-confucianism?

                                      [–]ManicMarineSemper Hindustan Super Omnes 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                      These days it's the far left that's really vocal

                                      Really? Let me preface this by saying that I identify as part of the non-socialist left (I vote for the Australian Greens). I browse /r/all a decent amount, and all the politics I see tends to be a combination of pro individual freedom everything (e.g. pot legalisation, anti-NSA/PATRIOT, pro-Snowden etc), anti-feminism (fatpeoplehate, tumblrinaction, etc), economic populism (down with the 1%! How are we going to do that again? I dunno but down with them!) and racism (a bunch of places, typically the kind of insidious racism that is invisible to many).

                                      Out of the explicitly political subs the only one I've seen voted to the top 100 in all more than once or twice is /r/libertarian, which has remained the largest political community on reddit for a long time. However that has changed recently with the Bernie Sanders stuff.

                                      IMO: Reddit is simply populist (unsurprising given how large it is). Pro individual liberty stuff, as advocated by Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders, plays really well, making them both popular at the moment. Sander's economic ideas also play to populism (smash the banks!) which reddit also likes.

                                      コメントをもっと表示する (4 返事)

                                        [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                        I think that if they move far enough off center, left and right distinctions become unimportant; they are just nuts. Well, it is important to them. They don't want to be like those communists who believe in taxes or those fascists who believe in private property...

                                        To see this in action, look at how confused history students become about the differences between fascism and communism in WWII...

                                        [–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                        I don't think its history students who don't understand the differences....

                                        [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 16ポイント17ポイント  (28子コメント)

                                        Tell me about it. Back when I was a philosophy student, before I left to join the glorious anthropology master race, I was one of the few non-Marxists I knew.

                                        The amount of papers I got back which had arbitrary markdowns for being 'too harsh on Rousseau' (read; disagree with my philosowaifu even if you understand what they're saying and refute it, -10%)... the horror.

                                        [–]P-01SGod made men, but RAF Enfield made them civilized. 21ポイント22ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                        "Philosowaifu" is a new one.

                                        Superior Nipponese culture is spreading!

                                        [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 11ポイント12ポイント  (12子コメント)

                                        Hobbes is my waifu, NeoPlatonists go home.

                                        [–]myfriendscallmethorLindisfarne was an inside job. 17ポイント18ポイント  (11子コメント)

                                        believing in an absolute monarchy ever

                                        [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 10ポイント11ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                        If you've read Hobbes, you'll know that his whole point wasn't advocating absolute monarchy. He employed that language, yes, but he lived in a time where doing otherwise would have resulted in his execution. Hobbes actually advocated the position that each person seeks their own happiness, and that what that entails varies unpredictably throughout the human population (and isn't, like the Aristotelian school predominant at the time believed, always a rational process).

                                        Hobbes believed nobody could judge anyone else's goals and more or less valid or worthy, but that the goals of individuals inevitably would conflict because of their extreme variety. Thus he proposed that a Leviathan, a sovereign power, was needed to mediate disputes and prevent individuals from interfering with each others autonomy. This sovereign didn't need to be a king. In fact, our society has replaced the sovereign ruler with the sovereign constitution; it's basically the same thing from the perspective of what role it fulfills.

                                        If you believe in the idea of natural rights over natural law, you're a Hobbesian. His school of thought is the foundation for liberal democracy, and he's the most important philosopher nobody cares about. Much better than Rousseau. Rousseau is worst girl.

                                        [–]myfriendscallmethorLindisfarne was an inside job. 7ポイント8ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                        But Leviathan was published in 1651, near the end of the English civil war. Half the country was rebelling against an monarch, I find it difficult to believe that he couldn't articulate anti-monarchical sentiments.

                                        To be honest, my knowledge of Hobbes is pretty limited, but I'm just having a hard time seeing how Hobbes is the foundation for a Liberal democracy. Didn't Hobbes directly argue against democracy, stating that absolute rule was a superior system of government?

                                        [–]M_de_M 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        Your knowledge of Hobbes is frankly wrong.

                                        It's not your fault, Hobbes is not taught fairly in high schools.

                                        To think of Hobbes as a pro-monarchy theorist is to do him an incredible disservice. Fun fact: royalists hated Leviathan. Hobbes' theory discarded the king's right to rule, arguing that it was the government in power, not the government in exile, that had a right to rule.

                                        The bits you were taught about Hobbes "arguing against democracy" was a polite afterthought Hobbes put in, in the (mistaken) hope that it would cause the royalists to overlook the actual theory. This fooled the people who write the AP European History curriculum, but it sure as hell didn't fool the royalists, who promptly ran him out of France.

                                        What Hobbes actually said was this: "there's no divine right of kings, there's no right to rule by descent from the past king, whoever's ruling and has power is the one who has the right to rule. It doesn't matter if that power is vested in a constitution, in a monarch, etc. All else being equal, though, it'd be nicer if we had a king than a democracy."

                                        So no, Hobbes did not directly argue against democracy, he mentioned his personal belief that the rule of one was more orderly than the rule of many, over the course of a treatise that really wasn't about that.

                                        [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                        He's where we get the idea of natural rights, surpassing the previous idea of natural law. Natural law basically states that there is an ideal social order built into the nature of reality, while natural rights states that all people should have some rights ensured by the government.

                                        It's not exactly 'democracy now' but it's a fundamental assumption that has served as the backbone of liberal democratic systems of governance.

                                        [–]myfriendscallmethorLindisfarne was an inside job. 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                        Learn something new each day. Thanks!

                                        [–]IllusiveSelf 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                        He argued for an absolute and unaccountable ruler who you were obliged to obey unless you were about to get murdered.

                                        But surprisingly enough, his theory does not actually do a good job of ruling out an absolute parliament.

                                        He literally was tutoring the future king in exile when he wrote the book, but Cromwell would've been a legitimate ruler to him.

                                        He is also relatively good on gender equality in the state of nature, unlike Rousseau.

                                        コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                          [–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 4ポイント5ポイント  (13子コメント)

                                          In what world would Marxists defend Rousseau?

                                          [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 6ポイント7ポイント  (6子コメント)

                                          All western socialist movements are in some way the intellectual descendants of Rousseau. He taught that to maximize individual freedom you need to eliminate inequality by abolishing private property and subsuming the will of all to the will of the collective society. Saying that this isn't a very reasonable proposition won me no favours - Marxism calls for that too.

                                          [–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                          Rousseau also called for leaving behind civilization and going back to primal ways. Marxists want to abolish Capitalism by overcoming its inherent faults and building onto it, not by destroying it and going back to an agrarian society.

                                          I don't know any Marxist who has something good to say about Rousseau. Rousseau has much more reception in non-Marxist Socialicm/ Anarchism.

                                          [–]MDFificationHolism Fetishist 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                          Just because Marxism is not exactly equivalent to the theories of Rousseau doesn't mean they aren't highly similar.

                                          Coincidentally; Marxism does believe in Primordial Communism, an utterly egalitarian, property-free state that's basically identical to what Rousseau thought pre-civilization society was. The final stage of Marx's progression of society was also a return to this egalitarian state - all hierarchies would be abolished, and nobody would wield coercive power. It's actually Rousseau who said that it's not possible for humanity to return to this egalitarian stasis, not Marx - he thought that now that mankind had tasted the surplus of organized society there was no going back, hence why he advocated absolute communalism. The differences between the two are mostly that Rousseau doesn't elaborate on social classes or class conflict at all.

                                          [–]Beansareno1Judeo-bolshevik 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                          Just because something sounds similiar, doesn't mean it is similar. Marxist and Roussaeuan (?) utopia differ very much and just because both reject authority doesn't make them the same.

                                          The difference, especially in rethoric, between Marxist socialism and Proudhoun/ Bakunin socialism is even smaller, yet even bigger. French pre-Marxist socialism may sound similiar, but it is pretty different, and doesn't get anymore than "well, they gave it their best". Rousseau is even further away from re-Marxist socialism.

                                          There are a ton of philosophers who had problems with authority systems based on it. They're still not similar to Marxism.

                                          edit: The interpretation of society and events in Marxist thought is completely different than from Rousseau. No Marxist would ever write on the earthquake of Lisbon than they shouldn't have lived in unnatural cities and that it wouldn't have happened if they'd live in small groups in the countryside. Nature isn't any reason for anything in Marxist thought, at least not in this way. Naturalism and Marxism are opposed.

                                          [–]Townsend_Harris 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                          Political Marxism* does, but Historical Theory Marxism* just says it's inevitable (kinda)

                                          *Don't know if the names are right, best I can come up with.

                                          コメントをもっと表示する (6 返事)

                                            コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                              コメントをもっと表示する (5 返事)

                                                [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                This is marvelous. I can't understand a thing! How did this stem from a fucking Predator fan film?!

                                                [–]Cpt_Tripps 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                basically predator hasn't advanced in 1000 years... if you count the "evidence" that the predator looks the same and uses the same weapons.

                                                [–]AofANLA 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                Look I wanna dispute his central Predator assumptions too tbh.

                                                [–]Cpt_Tripps 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                yeah People go bow hunting but to say human civilization hasn't advanced in 1000 years is pretty silly...

                                                [–]StrangeSemiticLatinThe Uralic language family is a Habsburg fabrication. 20ポイント21ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                "If it bleeds we can kill it"

                                                -Hitler talking about the United States.

                                                [–]International_KBAt least three milli-Cromwells worth of oppression 20ポイント21ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                "Get to the Channel!"

                                                -Hitler, briefing his generals on the invasion of France.

                                                [–]PaedragGaidinCatherine the Great: Death by Horseplay 18ポイント19ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                Lol, B-29 as "low technology."

                                                [–]Gyang193paid MIC shill 16ポイント17ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                The first pressurized bomber i believe. Tech so low. Had a fucking railway inside to get from place to place. Capable of dropping nuclear weapons (with mods). Im sure the soviets copied it cuz it was so shitty

                                                [–]PaedragGaidinCatherine the Great: Death by Horseplay 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Do you know how many spark plugs it took to keep that piece o' junk flying?? Ugh, so primitive.

                                                [–]ucstructTesla is the Library of Alexandria incarnate 17ポイント18ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                Even if you fall for the fanboyism about German tanks, Lugers, V2s, etc how do you ignore things like radar, aircraft carriers, and city destroying bombs? Even V2s were developed from American and Russian designs.

                                                Now I'm sure the bleeding heart pseudo intellectuals of /r/badhistory will write walls of text denouncing this, for the simple reason that the notion that liberal democracies win because they are more ruthless and less prone to silly delusions is offensive to them.

                                                Aside from the incorrect notion that Axis technology was somehow way more advanced than the Allies, I'm not sure this is a reasonable argument. Lebensraum probably meant tens of millions of more deaths if fully enacted.

                                                All conflict between groups is war and the Predators are either naive, arrogant or both in not seeing this. I.e. if you attack another group you can't really control whether or not that group regards it as war and how they respond to that.

                                                Now we're arguing about fictional alien races. Major Dutch did nothing wrong.

                                                [–]frezikLincoln is literally the guy who killed Hitler 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                Even V2s were developed from American and Russian designs.

                                                Hmm? I know von Braun had some correspondence with Goddard before the war, but it was still mostly von Braun's own design.

                                                [–]ucstructTesla is the Library of Alexandria incarnate 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                I'm no rocket surgeon, but many of the innovations from Goddards rockets like the gyroscope system and fuel delivery system made it into the V2. These quotes are adapted from wikipedia, so fair warning, but they also at least make it seem at least a passing inspiration took place.

                                                Nevertheless, in 1963, von Braun, reflecting on the history of rocketry, said of Goddard: "His rockets ... may have been rather crude by present-day standards, but they blazed the trail and incorporated many features used in our most modern rockets and space vehicles". He once recalled that "Goddard's experiments in liquid fuel saved us years of work, and enabled us to perfect the V-2 years before it would have been possible."

                                                [–]yjupahk 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                There were some design novelties in the V2 such as the integration of the gyro-stabilisation with radio command guidance. Goddard and Korolyov did solve the fundamental design issues in the 1930s, though.

                                                What Von Braun brought to the table was practical experience which isn't to be dismissed in this field. The V2 was a very ambitious design that placed very high stresses on all components which nonetheless had to be very light. This experience was invaluable but it was also why the Soviets weren't severely disadvantaged post-war even though they held only relatively junior German staff.

                                                [–]ucstructTesla is the Library of Alexandria incarnate 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                No doubt, I think the Germans made huge advances. I didn't want to minimize that, but technologies are rarely developed in a vacuum. Some people act like the Nazis came down from on high with amazing wonder weapons when it's a lot more complex.

                                                [–]ErnieMaclan 16ポイント17ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                                I think the more important point is that Predators aren't supposed to be a long term threat to humans. They're killing humans for sport, not warfare.

                                                Also, TIL the Nazis weren't ruthless. Except on the Eastern front. Where they won also lost.

                                                [–]AofANLA 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Like, the ones is the movies are children let play on earth too. They're specifically not trying to wage war.

                                                [–]Illuminatesfolly 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                God I really hate to do this, but referencing the mid 2000s game Alien vs. Predator: Extinction and the numerous trashy fiction novels made in the Universe of AvP, the statements about Predators not being a long term threat are wrong!

                                                The Predator race has a military, that does use the full extent of their technology to fight world spanning conflicts against the xenomorphs. The predators that hunt humans are just big game hunters seeking glory for their clan -- I might add, in order to allow their warriors to face the trials necessary to enter higher castes in society, such as the military.

                                                Welp, going to go kill myself now

                                                [–]BAWS_MAJOR 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                Mind-boggling.

                                                Also, dat subreddit

                                                [–]TitusBluth 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                It sounds like this guy read more War Nerd than he could digest.

                                                (No disrespect intended to the War Nerd).

                                                [–]NobodyMinus 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                I have a rule where whenever someone uses the word "spam" or the phrase "zerg rush" when discussing actual real-world war I completely disregard their opinion.

                                                [–]TimothyNWell, if you take away 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                I had to read this title twice because it was so funny. This person hits more badhistory points in so few sentences I think they deserve to be in our HOF.

                                                [–]vidkunquislingII 16ポイント17ポイント  (15子コメント)

                                                The Sherman wasn't necessarily a bad tank. Later models had decent armor and weapons, as well as being generally reliable. By the end of the war, the US was already deploying M26 Pershings, and Britain deployed the first Centurions only a month after the war ended.

                                                [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 17ポイント18ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                Nuh-uh! You know nothing about tanks!

                                                I'm an expert on WWII tanks! I saw Fury on the day of its release!

                                                [–]SphereIsGreat 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                I'll edit an old reply in response to your claims that the Sherman

                                                wasn't necessarily a bad tank.

                                                The Panther crisis of July ’44 is overblown and is what people think of when they think of the Sherman. Remember, US tanks had been facing German armor in North Africa and Italy with little difficulty. The bocage of Normandy forced Shermans to attack up narrow, hedge-flanked roads or across farms. In other words Panthers or (in the much rarer case) Tigers were being engaged frontally or outside of combat range. By August/September ’44, the battle shifted dramatically in the US’s favor as they achieved freedom of maneuver and mobility unmatched by anything the Germans had.

                                                It’s a common myth that the US needed a numerical advantage to overcome German panzers but this never happened in the Normandy campaign. Either no such numerical advantage existed or circumstances made it impossible to concentrate forces like this on the battlefield. Even during the Ardennes campaign, the US barely held a 3:1 advantage.

                                                It was not the number of Shermans that were created success. Rather, it was the fine balance of firepower, armor and mobility. The best example I can offer is the Battle of Arracourt where, on Sept. 18, elements of the US 4th Armored Division came under attack from 113th Panzer Brigade. At the end of the day forty three German tanks, mostly factory-new Panthers, had been destroyed compared to three American tank destroyers and five M4s.

                                                [–]OMGSPACERUSSIA 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

                                                The Sherman wasn't designed to fight tanks. It was an infantry support vehicle with limited anti-armor capability. US doctrine called for a separate arm of tank destroyers throughout almost all of the war. That's why we had vehicles like the M18.

                                                [–]SphereIsGreat 16ポイント17ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                I wish this myth would die.

                                                From Chapter 15, Section 4 of FM 100-5, Field Service Regulations, Operations published May 22, 1941:

                                                1070 The armored division is a powerfully armed and armored, highly mobile force. Its outstanding characteristics are its battlefield mobility and its protected fire power. Other important characteristics are: extended radius of action; shock power; logistical self-containment; and great sensitiveness to obstacles, unfavorable terrain, darkness and weather.

                                                1071 The armored division is organized primarily to perform missions that require great mobility and firepower. It is given decisive missions. It is capable of engaging in all forms of combat, but its primary role is in offensive operations against hostile rear areas.

                                                The manual continues, from Chapter 16 (emphasis mine):

                                                1147 Tanks in the attack are given successive objectives. When hostile resistance at each objective is subdued, they reorganize and prepare for further employment. Tanks should not be tied too closely to foot troops. If so restricted, their mobility is sacrificed and they become a vulnerable target for antitank weapons.

                                                In the attack, tanks are disposed in depth. The first echelon, supported by artillery and combat aviation, has the mission of destroying the hostile antitank guns.

                                                The next echelon is composed of the tanks which accompany or immediately precede the other attacking units. The mission of this echelon is to overrun the hostile position just prior to the arrival of the assaulting troops and destroy the hostile automatic weapons which have survived the preparatory fires. Attacking troops promptly take advantage of the tank action, advance to and occupy each successive objective.

                                                "But SphereIsGreat! That's hardly conclusive enough to thwart years of Call of Duty and Band of Brothers!"

                                                Fine, then read FM 17-10: Amored Force Field Manual from March 1942. Find a place where it says that Armor exists only in an infantry support role. Wait, what's this? It ALSO talks about the employment of tank destroyer battalions on page 91?

                                                Missions (a) The mission of the tank destroyer with the armored division is to assist either by offensive or defensive action in the protection of the division against hostile mechanized forces. (b) The battalion may be used to- 1. Protect a bivouac, assembly area, or rallying point. 2. Guard an exposed flank. 3. Protect the rear of the division.

                                                Furthermore, the 76mm was intended to replace the 75mm in 1941, two years before the first Soviet encounters with Panther and a year before the first encounters with any Tigers.

                                                TL; DR: US Armor Doctrine emphasized mobility, envelopment and firepower and had very little (ie nothing) to do with infantry support. The Tank Destroyer branch was not created to serve as front line anti-tank but as second echelon defense and support. The Sherman was more than a match for German armor of the period. It was a good balance of mobility, armor and firepower.

                                                [–]vidkunquislingII 8ポイント9ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                Later models did use the same 76 mm gun that was on the Hellcat, but early models were pretty much entirely intended for support. Howitzers, while good at destroying soft targets, weren't as good when Shermans had to fight enemy tanks.

                                                [–]DuxBelisariusDr. Rodney McKay is my spirit animal 7ポイント8ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                The F*****G Boeing B-29 Superfortress was LOW TECHNOLOGY!!!

                                                I give up

                                                [–]StrangeSemiticLatinThe Uralic language family is a Habsburg fabrication. 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                Dunno, I always thought it was a bit like Alien versus Predator. The Allies being the aliens, the Predators being the Axis, and the audience watching the film being the Jews.

                                                [–]blasto_blastocyst 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                The ovens were just for popping corn!

                                                [–]ShadistsReddit 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                democracies are really, really good at war.

                                                My favorite comment right there... I'd love the OP to point out the government style that wasn't, at some point, good at war.

                                                [–]TheDocksI'm descended from Antlantis 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                Pacifist anarchic communes!!

                                                (Not sure if that's a real thing)

                                                コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                  [–]TotesMessengerTattle Tale 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

                                                  If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

                                                  [–]Master-Thiefwears pajamas and is therefore a fascist 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                                  Does that make the Soviets Xenomorphs in this analogy? If so, man, that totally explains the Red Scare now.

                                                  [–]socialjusticeorc 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                  When they said "the communists are among us" I didn't think they meant "in your esophagus". Red indeed..

                                                  コメントをもっと表示する (1 返事)

                                                    [–]Stefan_Zhirkov 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    Check his posting history; is he a Nazi, or just a wehraboo?

                                                    [–]Guy_de_NolastnameThe UK and US did nothing wrong. 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    He apparently moderates some pretty interesting subreddits. Of course, they're probably just hilarious trolling, and I don't get the humor because I'm a filthy SJW.

                                                    [–]Colonel_BlimpO Fisher-san, give me your Dreadnought! 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Yeah, because the B-29 and Lancaster were so backwards compared to the bloody Heinkel.

                                                    EDIT:

                                                    They were more willing to use more force earlier in the war to achieve those aims (particularly the UK which had a doctrine that 'the bomber will always get through' that was predicated on carpet bombing being used.

                                                    Holy shit, how simple is this guy? He realises that "the bomber will always get through" was the epitome of the British fear of German bombing as much as it was any kind of strategy, right? The British thought they were going to suffer mass casualties from bombing when war came.

                                                    [–]keyree 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    In fact in the New World the Spanish had a much smaller technological advantage of the Aztecs and yet it was still a slaughter.

                                                    This guy needs to read that series about myths of the Spanish conquest by that one guy on this subreddit. I seem to recall that it was indeed largely a slaughter, but the other way. Didn't the Spaniards come really close to being wiped out before one of Tenochtitlan's opposing city-states realized they could be used against the Triple Alliance?

                                                    [–]drunkengeebee 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    You forgot the bad history about the supposed conquest of the Aztecs, and it being the result of any sort of technological advantage.

                                                    [–]JosefStallion 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    The British and Americans are basically Ewoks

                                                    [–]lolplatypusTwo Popes, a Fuhrer, and a Pizza Place 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Dude just WILL NOT DROP the "Pearl Harbor as one decisive blow meant to put the U.S. out of the war for good" shtick.

                                                    [–]irritatingrobotBen Franklin was actually the Egyptian god Horus. 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    An armed group lead by a corny Austrian gets involved in a military action abroad and is picked off one by one until the last man standing is taken out with a nuclear weapon.

                                                    WWII was pretty much exactly like predator, checkmate /r/badhistory.

                                                    [–]PerryGriggs 4ポイント5ポイント  (7子コメント)

                                                    I have this guy tagged already from a thread in a defense subreddit.

                                                    Somehow I'm not surprised to see him here.

                                                    http://np.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/346gg9/iran_takes_control_of_cargo_ship_us_sends/cqruoz3

                                                    [–]flyingdragon8Anti-Materialist Marxist 11ポイント12ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                                    Lol looks like he looked up Realism on Wikipedia and now thinks he's Metternich and Bismarck rolled into one. M'balance of power durrrrr

                                                    [–]PerryGriggs 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    M'strong arming nations leads to peace durrr.

                                                    [–]Meissner_sanPiye? Isih penak jamanku toh? 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                                    "Morgenthau is my waifu~" /s

                                                    [–]misunderstandgapPre-Marx, Marx, Post-Marx studies. All three fields of history. 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                                    Enemies of the US can sense weakness and fear, like dogs. That's what makes idealistic Presidents like Obama and Carter a danger to world peace.

                                                    コメントをもっと表示する (2 返事)

                                                      コメントをもっと表示する (131 返事)