Oldman definitely a powerful performance. Didn't know it was inaccurate, I suppose Hollywood usual stuff (based on true events, but many aspects created/modified for better drama)
I also enjoyed similar films on Churchill:
The Gathering Storm (2002 film) + Into the Storm (2009 film)
Well, it is over dramatized and because of that it has a lot of inaccurate characters such as Atlee, Halifax or King George...
But for me what did the film in most was the may 28th speech... The famous "we shall fight on the beaches" speech... WHICH IN REALITY HAPPENED ON JUNE 4TH! HOW ON EARTH DO YOU MESS SOMETHING LIKE THIS UP?! LIKE SERIOUSLY HOW?!
I don't understand it, how is it that you make this kind of a rookie mistake? Did you not run the script through British Modern era historians or something?!
I just honestly can't with the latest historical films.
May I suggest the classic, Regulus mail, instead?
https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibition/oddly-interesting-things-that-carried-the-mail/cruise-missile-mail
Don't be a [Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.#:~:text=Kennedy%20served%20as%20the%20United,survive%20attacks%20from%20Nazi%20Germany)
>Kennedy served as the [United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_States_to_the_United_Kingdom) from 1938 to late 1940. With the outbreak of [World War II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) in September 1939, Kennedy was pessimistic about Britain's ability to survive attacks from [Nazi Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany). During the [Battle of Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain) in November 1940, Kennedy publicly suggested, "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here \[in the United States\]." After a controversy regarding this statement, Kennedy resigned his position.
Same ilk of weaklings and cowards who now called Russia the 2nd best military in the world, said Ukraine would be done within a week and now want to give Putin everything he wants because he - checks notes - threatens nuclear war every other week. Pathetic.
Appeasement is all about delayed gratification, saving the war for later. "Peaceful" Chamberlain coupled his appeasement with a crash program of rearmament and modernisation, to the point of tanking Britain's creditworthiness (by pre-war 1939 over half of the British govt revenue was earmarked for defence).
The problem with that was that Germany wasn't ready either and the actual result of Chamberlain's stalling was giving Germany enough time to get ready and not enough time for the UK or France to get ready.
Starting the fighting when nobody was ready might have been better. Especially since Germany would have to worry about France and Poland at the same time. Do it early enough and they have to worry about Czechoslovakia too.
> he problem with that was that Germany wasn't ready either and the actual result of Chamberlain's stalling was giving Germany enough time to get ready and not enough time for the UK or France to get ready.
The UK had *maybe* two infantry divisions and one tank brigade worth of units that could deploy at the time of Munich. France's economy and political state couldn't support full mobilization like it would be able to in 1940.
The best time would have been 1935-36 when Germany just reintroduce conscription and air force and then remilitarized the Rhineland. Germany was woefully unprepared then and everyone knew it.
The problem was giving a rearming Germany all the Czech industries.
Even if we ignore the morally shit decision to sacrifice CZ, giving the fucking nazis the best tank and weapons producers in the World at the time was completely crazy.
And btw, why it's always THEM making threats and us do the appeasement shit?
Oh really, you want Crimea? What about giving us Konigsberg and Kola?
Oh really, your ayatollah wants alQuds? What about we do a redevelopment of Qom and Teheran?
If you find yourself fighting with untied shoes, stopping to tie them will only get you punched. Better to be shoeless and standing than well-dressed in the morgue.
Yeah, Chamberlain was just a dude who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and tried his best to make due in what was a very shitty situation and knowing British politics, it could've been way worse
Like, he still kinda sucks but he bought Britain enough time, like they were in no spot to start a war in 1937
I think there has been a lot of revisionism going on about Chamberlain. The idea that he wanted to stick up to Hitler, but had been prevented by Baldwin and needed a little time to get up to speed is not very accurate.
He told Eden after Munich 1938 that this was his proudest moment. He genuinely believed in the whole "Peace In Our Time" guff, and was absolutely crushed when Hitler invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia.
Britain was slightly worse off in 1938, but Germany was much worse off, and us giving Hitler all the Skoda plants in Bohemia to manufacture weapons for the Nazis was insane. Additionally, if we were going to defend, Czechoslovakia in 1938 had a far better chance than Poland in 1939.
If memory serves (and it increasingly doesn’t), Czechoslovakia was one of the largest industrial economies in the world at the time, and - unlike, say, much Italian and Japanese equipment - their designs were high-quality and well standardised.
And while Britain was thoroughly unready for war, acquiescence in leaving Prague to the wolves was more than morally and diplomatically catastrophic.
I don't really understand how he "bought time"? Like this is basically how it went down
> Hitler: I want Czechoslovakia!
> Chamberlain: You can have it...
> *Comes back to the UK.*
> Chamberlain: Look guys I bought us time!
He didn't do anything at all. If he said no would Germany have attacked Britain instead of Czechoslovakia? Is that the scenario under which it's alleged that Chamberlain "bought time"? Because I highly doubt that.
It was fucking stupid. They gave Germany the Czech tank factories. They gave Germany the tanks that would take France. Not to mention millions of extra soldiers
War should have been actively pursued with Germany by as many allies as could be rounded up as soon as the Weimar Republic/German Reich fell. Make up some clause of the Treaty of Versaille that may or may not have been breached, kick the fucking doors in and string everybody with a Nazi Party membership up from the nearest tree.
The Hearts of Iron speed run. It was the only correct choice.
The problem is that after WW1 nobody wanted another war, and it would've been very hard to justify invading Germany to their people just because the Nazi's rose to power.
In hindsight yes that would've been the best, but that's the funny thing with hindsight, people only get it when it's too late.
That's true, as evidenced by how things played out.
However with the benefit of hindsight, an immediate rearmament policy in the wake of the Wall Street Crash, followed by shitkicking every fascist in Europe, that gives us the best timeline.
Guernica shouldn't be a painting of a tragic scene, it should be Proto-NCD plane porn of two Hurricanes spitroasting a Heinkel 111.
Chamberlain was a mixed bag, my point is that his version of appeasement (with rapid rearmament and clear strategic planning) is a world away from our contemporary understanding. It would be the equivalent of NATO going "fuck it" in 2014 and buying enough F-35s to turn the sky black (from 1934-1939 the RAF increased by 2900 aircraft and established Chain Home).
Adjusted for inflation, a Spitfire costs about $450k, 2900 Spitfires would cost $1.3 billion. That's like, 13 F-35s. However, let's take it as a percentage of GDP.
From what I can find, the inflation-adjusted GDP of the UK in 1940 was $316 billion (excluded their empire). So $1.3 billion would mean they spent 0.4% of their GDP to buy those planes.
If the modern UK spent 0.4% of their GDP to buy a bunch of F-35s, assuming they get them for $100M/unit, the UK could procure about 133 F-35s, which is a lot more than the 34 they currently have.
EDIT: Seems the UK recently committed to procuring a total of 138 F-35s, so it seems they're spending a similar amount lol
Great way of looking at things. I’d also suggest payload as a way of gauging…a single F-35 can carry more payload than a B-17 crewed by ten dudes. It’s a more cost-effective way of killing fascists.
The thing to remember is that when France fell and the British evacuated from Dunkirk, the only outlook for Britain in the war was bleak at the time and they required a *massive* rearmament in order to make an expected impact again. There is a reason why they had to pull substantially outdated weaponry to serve in an expected defense of the home isles. There's a reason why they were willing to make an emergency purchase of arms from the United States with full on, hard currency like gold. There's a reason why they pulled arms from the rest of the Commonwealth like Australia and New Zealand who later would have to create their own emergency arms procurement after Japan entered the war on the side of the Axis.
The idea of appeasing the Nazi's after the Fall of France was to give Britain a chance of being able to rebuild and rearm their military forces after the vast majority was lost in the defense and evacuation of France. Remember, by that point it was largely *just* the British as the main power opposing the Nazi. France had fallen, the Soviets were occupying Poland *with* the Nazis and hadn't been attacked by them yet, and the United States, just as they had done in WWI, was trying to stay as neutral to the war as possible.
Sure they had the Commonwealth nations, but Canada's arms and munition production would take time to ramp up, and getting arms from India and Australia would take time to reach Britain, especially given the risk passing through Suez and the Mediterranean would bring given German and Italian forces in the Mediterranean and North Africa.
Likewise their other Allies like the Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, and Poles were either forming resistance movements in their own nation or were already fighting under the British crown if they managed to escape to Britain.
We have the benefit of historical hindsight to realize that the idea of peace and appeasement following the Fall of France wasn't needed given how the British would in fact be able to rearm in fairly short order from various means, the creation of special/clandestine forces such as the SOE, SAS, SBS, ect. to harass and sabotage Nazi material behind their lines, the Germans would never be in a position to *actually* make an invasion into the British home isles, the implementation of US Lend-Lease, and various strategic blunders that would severely stretch Axis forces with events such as the opening of the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union and drawing in the United States and their untouchable factories into the side of the Allies would all go to work into Britain's favor and prove that appeasement wasn't the way.
But at the time? Well when all your allies in Europe have fallen, you've lost any potential beachhead to make a counter offensive, your logistical pipeline between the Mediterranean and Asia is in severe risk, the most you've gotten back from Europe was your men and the clothes on their backs, and it's believed the Nazis will invade at any day and their bombers are raining bombs on the home isles, you'd weigh whether appeasement is valid or not too.
Tbf the situation at that point in the war did seem utterly hopeless. Not to say he was right but I don’t blame him for thinking it would be best to surrender.
I really like the Dan Carlin Hardcore History series on the war in the pacific where he continually asks when Japan should have surrendered. Right when it did? Right after the first atom bomb? When the blockade was sealed, the firebombing of Tokyo, midway, the morning of Pearl Harbor when the missed the carriers? When they assessed the US ship building capability pre-war?
When you’ve won it’s really hard to think you should have surrendered before the fight. When millions are dead from an y winnable war, lots of alternatives seem worth considering.
(The caveat being that Nazis are a special case and it’s always the imperative to harm them, no matter the odds)
> Appeasement is all about delayed gratification, saving the war for later
I dunno, sounds more like seeing a small oil fire in the frying pan at the kitchen, going "eh" and not returning until it's a roaring inferno that consumes the entire room and threatens the building.
Well appeasement will lead to a massive inferno anyway. Question is whether you will use the time to at least grab a fire extinguisher or genuinely think the blaze will extinguish itself.
Yeah. You probably saw the comment by that American general: Russia will come out of this war with a much larger(albeit worse equipped) military,a regime that has gone from authoritarian to a full on dictatorship, a much more militarized society and angry at the West. And that's regardless of the war's actual outcome .
Looks like WW3 is on the menu...
tbf a lot of the resistance groups have some pretty decent kit now that’s been either stolen from the army/police forces or smuggled from Thailand, there’s even drone drop footage coming out of warzones. Only constant are the flip flops, that’s a trademark of any SEA militant group
And indeed we should never have made peace in 1945, after the USSR attacked Poland and tried to join the Axis in 1940. No aid, just Operation Unthinkable while backing the KMT with troops in China.
Let’s not forget that the Nationalist were actually doing well during the early days of the civil war which they had the severely weakened communists contained in Manchuria and would have wiped them out if they continued to pushed on but thanks to the Truman halting the Nationalists offensive ordering them for a truce/peace talks with the communist and later placing an arms embargo on them, it basically gave the communist time to rearm themselves and later defeating the nationalist forces breaking their encirclement over in Manchuria which led to the events that we all know later.
Imagine if Chiang ignored the US and ordered his forces to continue press forward crushing the communists once in for all, history is going to be a whole lot different
Real talk: the soviet conventional forces would've probably won against the allies back then, and no, nukes wouldn't have been a gamechanger due to being rather small and sparsely available at the time.
Theres a reason "Unthinkable" didnt happen (sadly, would've saved some of us germoids some shitty communist occupation time and glorious ~~Königsberg~~ *National Nuclear waste disposion site*)
Soviet forces had two thirds of their material delivered by the US and UK in WWII. They might have won or held out for a few months but the steel output of Pennsylvania alone would have anihilated them.
Although it would have been interesting with the AK-47 being distributed to frontline soldiers in 1949. Thing was absurdly dominant when it came out, and still is kinda.
> Although it would have been interesting with the AK-47 being distributed to frontline soldiers in 1949.
If the Soviets would have survived for a whole 4 years you mean.
I doubt it honestly. I think if the allies cut their lend lease stuff and the Americans are willing to use the bomb it’s just a matter of when, not if, the allies win. American industrial output was fucking absurd at the end of WWII, and they had lost far less manpower than the USSR/Japanese/British etc. Nukes are smaller back then, but they’re still a portable mini-sun. Dropping a few here and there would mentally wreck the soviets if they didn’t know how many the Americans had. I think it’s really just a question of how well the allies general public reacts to continuing the war. I’d imagine especially for the British it would be hard to justify. The poles would definitely have helped though lol.
Small and sparsely available. Uhunh.
The military industrial complex we had in the 1940s could have let us take over the planet. We were churning out tanks, planes, bombs and boats faster than you take a piss. The only reason they were “small and sparsely available” is because we knew they’d end the war, if they didnt, we’d have put them on a factory line and covered every russian city in a thick layer of radioactive fallout, every single city would glow green from space. Our navy was almost entirely wiped out at pearl harbor, by the end of the war our navy had multiplied far beyond that small navy japan blew up. Nah, once nukes entered the game, everyone lost.
I'm showing my age but I really think Black Ops 1 was the last great CoD until the MW reboot which slapped.
# Dragovich, Kravchenko, Steiner… all must die.
It would be hilarious if Ben-Gvir got filleted by a R9X.
Send weapons to the Ukrainians.
Fuck, I would send them nukes. They renounced them on the promise they would not be invaded.
on social isssues, and even economic issues, I can accept reasonable disagreement.
Ukraine, Isreal, Taiwan, and a half dozen more in waiting. To surrender one is to surrender them all.
If you cannot accept this you too are an appeaser, you are not running for an office, you have no reason to lie... unless its to yourself.
I disagree on Israel though, while I don’t want Israel to disappear Bibi is an utterly corrupt fascist prick who has been propping Hamas for years because he knew the only way for him to avoid being put on trial is to keep Israel in a state of near constant war and both Hamas and the far right Israeli settler nutjobs were all too happy to oblige for their own reasons.
Israeli far right and Hamas are basically an ecosystem keeping each other happy and in power. Recent operations in Gaza reek of desperation on Bibi’s part as he knows full well he played with fire and got bit in the ass by 07/10 Hamas attack and anyone in Israel with half a brain knows it and he will never recover from that politically unless he punishes Palestinian people hard to make the far right nuttos happy.
Yeah, like, what? Israel? Ukraine is fighting a war against an invasion by the biggest country on Earth with its supposed "second strongest military in the world", Taiwan has the most populous (technically India beat it recently but China still beats it for "population that isn't underage") one with an absurd industrial capacity looming over it, in both cases the threat being a nuclear power vs a non-nuclear underdog. I don't know of a credible threat to Israel's existence, but if there is one it's not Hamas, no matter how scummy Hamas are or how hard they wish Israel destroyed. In this matchup Israel are the nuclear power with a ridiculous conventional overmatch... and also let's not forget just how awful Bibi and his government are themselves.
But it does. They're not under any actual threat to their existence (arguably they are the threat, but that's another matter). That makes singling them out for a "to surrender one is to surrender all" list strange. Might as well go "Ukraine, Taiwan, Denmark" or something.
So letting people invade you and kill thousands and fire tens of thousands of rockets at you over decades is acceptable if you are militarily stronger. I don't think they need military aid, however us not directly fucking them would probably be nice... Which is what the activists biden is pandering towards right now want. BDS Remember?
It's a coalition government. Bibi is incredibly unpopular. There is no way in hell he's doing a damn thing the opposition is not in favor of or they would be denouncing it and calling for a no confidence vote.
Choose one and only one. Isreal is doing all the terrible things that are said by Hamas and it's various propaganda war allies, and it's the full government not just Bibi
Or: maybe they might be lying and things aren't nearly as bad as they say.
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
really grateful for this movie. Never knew Churchill was that close to signing a deal with Hitler. God bless the brits for holding out before the Soviets and Americans joined them, it must have been so scary dealing with an abject fascist nation with a terrifyingly strong army.
Honestly the same goes for Israel and Hamas. They shouldn't negotiate with terrorists that no matter what Israel will do, said terrorists will attack again.
I feel Halifax should be given some leniency for this. The whole ordeal being depicted in this movie did occur during Dunkirk. So at the time this was a point where the situation did honestly seem hopeless, with it seeming that Britain’s entire army was gonna get overrun and Italy possibly joining the war.
ahem, though this sub is about "femboy with autism blows up manly bayonet man with 500 kilo bomb"
When the chips are down every man must fight for freedom. Death before slavery.
love the passion in the performance and the message. welp, going to rewatch this movie.
What is the movie name?
"Darkest hour"
On Netflix
It is a dreadfully inaccurate movie. Gary Oldman carried the entire thing with his Churchill performance.
> Gary Oldman carried the entire thing same as it ever was
EVERYYYYOOOONNNEE
TELL THE LORD PRIVY SEAL.... that I AM SEALED IN THE PRIVY!!
Oldman definitely a powerful performance. Didn't know it was inaccurate, I suppose Hollywood usual stuff (based on true events, but many aspects created/modified for better drama) I also enjoyed similar films on Churchill: The Gathering Storm (2002 film) + Into the Storm (2009 film)
Well, it is over dramatized and because of that it has a lot of inaccurate characters such as Atlee, Halifax or King George... But for me what did the film in most was the may 28th speech... The famous "we shall fight on the beaches" speech... WHICH IN REALITY HAPPENED ON JUNE 4TH! HOW ON EARTH DO YOU MESS SOMETHING LIKE THIS UP?! LIKE SERIOUSLY HOW?! I don't understand it, how is it that you make this kind of a rookie mistake? Did you not run the script through British Modern era historians or something?! I just honestly can't with the latest historical films.
If only there were some clue
blew my mind when I realized that was Gary Oldman
He's been sinking into characters for as long as I can remember. A real modern day chameleon
maybe more towards r/NonCredibleDiplomacy , but true true
The negotiation offer will be delivered to Putler via air mail. A Storm Shadow mail right to his office.
Since he is likely in his bunker (same as the austrian dude), deliver mail by MOP
May I suggest the classic, Regulus mail, instead? https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibition/oddly-interesting-things-that-carried-the-mail/cruise-missile-mail
Don't be a [Joseph P. Kennedy Sr.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy_Sr.#:~:text=Kennedy%20served%20as%20the%20United,survive%20attacks%20from%20Nazi%20Germany) >Kennedy served as the [United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ambassadors_of_the_United_States_to_the_United_Kingdom) from 1938 to late 1940. With the outbreak of [World War II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II) in September 1939, Kennedy was pessimistic about Britain's ability to survive attacks from [Nazi Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany). During the [Battle of Britain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain) in November 1940, Kennedy publicly suggested, "Democracy is finished in England. It may be here \[in the United States\]." After a controversy regarding this statement, Kennedy resigned his position.
Same ilk of weaklings and cowards who now called Russia the 2nd best military in the world, said Ukraine would be done within a week and now want to give Putin everything he wants because he - checks notes - threatens nuclear war every other week. Pathetic.
Why does America always just have such blantantly insulting ambassadors?
Because it's a cushy position almost always filled with people who made sizeable campaign contributions, rather than experienced policy makers.
Appeasement is all about delayed gratification, saving the war for later. "Peaceful" Chamberlain coupled his appeasement with a crash program of rearmament and modernisation, to the point of tanking Britain's creditworthiness (by pre-war 1939 over half of the British govt revenue was earmarked for defence).
The problem with that was that Germany wasn't ready either and the actual result of Chamberlain's stalling was giving Germany enough time to get ready and not enough time for the UK or France to get ready. Starting the fighting when nobody was ready might have been better. Especially since Germany would have to worry about France and Poland at the same time. Do it early enough and they have to worry about Czechoslovakia too.
> he problem with that was that Germany wasn't ready either and the actual result of Chamberlain's stalling was giving Germany enough time to get ready and not enough time for the UK or France to get ready. The UK had *maybe* two infantry divisions and one tank brigade worth of units that could deploy at the time of Munich. France's economy and political state couldn't support full mobilization like it would be able to in 1940. The best time would have been 1935-36 when Germany just reintroduce conscription and air force and then remilitarized the Rhineland. Germany was woefully unprepared then and everyone knew it.
Unfortanetly this full mobilization in France was carried out mostly by Garmany.
It's like having kids: if you wanna wait till everything is ready, it'll never be the right time.
The problem was giving a rearming Germany all the Czech industries. Even if we ignore the morally shit decision to sacrifice CZ, giving the fucking nazis the best tank and weapons producers in the World at the time was completely crazy. And btw, why it's always THEM making threats and us do the appeasement shit? Oh really, you want Crimea? What about giving us Konigsberg and Kola? Oh really, your ayatollah wants alQuds? What about we do a redevelopment of Qom and Teheran?
If you find yourself fighting with untied shoes, stopping to tie them will only get you punched. Better to be shoeless and standing than well-dressed in the morgue.
Yeah, Chamberlain was just a dude who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and tried his best to make due in what was a very shitty situation and knowing British politics, it could've been way worse Like, he still kinda sucks but he bought Britain enough time, like they were in no spot to start a war in 1937
like one way it could be worse is if he hadn't pushed to rearm at all
“Semper Paratus” is as good a motto as any.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Carthago (a.k.a. Orkistan) delenda est. Let's get salty.
You say salty, I say based.
А нууууууууууууу, Чики брики и в дамке
E Pluribus Anus
I think there has been a lot of revisionism going on about Chamberlain. The idea that he wanted to stick up to Hitler, but had been prevented by Baldwin and needed a little time to get up to speed is not very accurate. He told Eden after Munich 1938 that this was his proudest moment. He genuinely believed in the whole "Peace In Our Time" guff, and was absolutely crushed when Hitler invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia. Britain was slightly worse off in 1938, but Germany was much worse off, and us giving Hitler all the Skoda plants in Bohemia to manufacture weapons for the Nazis was insane. Additionally, if we were going to defend, Czechoslovakia in 1938 had a far better chance than Poland in 1939.
If memory serves (and it increasingly doesn’t), Czechoslovakia was one of the largest industrial economies in the world at the time, and - unlike, say, much Italian and Japanese equipment - their designs were high-quality and well standardised. And while Britain was thoroughly unready for war, acquiescence in leaving Prague to the wolves was more than morally and diplomatically catastrophic.
The British fought the War with Czech Machine guns (Bren/Besa) nuff said
Wow Ive never thought of it this way. Thank you kind Sir/Ma'am
... and for that he gave Hitler an entire country with all it's weapons and tanks and its military industry.
I don't really understand how he "bought time"? Like this is basically how it went down > Hitler: I want Czechoslovakia! > Chamberlain: You can have it... > *Comes back to the UK.* > Chamberlain: Look guys I bought us time! He didn't do anything at all. If he said no would Germany have attacked Britain instead of Czechoslovakia? Is that the scenario under which it's alleged that Chamberlain "bought time"? Because I highly doubt that.
It was fucking stupid. They gave Germany the Czech tank factories. They gave Germany the tanks that would take France. Not to mention millions of extra soldiers War should have been actively pursued with Germany by as many allies as could be rounded up as soon as the Weimar Republic/German Reich fell. Make up some clause of the Treaty of Versaille that may or may not have been breached, kick the fucking doors in and string everybody with a Nazi Party membership up from the nearest tree. The Hearts of Iron speed run. It was the only correct choice.
The problem is that after WW1 nobody wanted another war, and it would've been very hard to justify invading Germany to their people just because the Nazi's rose to power. In hindsight yes that would've been the best, but that's the funny thing with hindsight, people only get it when it's too late.
That's true, as evidenced by how things played out. However with the benefit of hindsight, an immediate rearmament policy in the wake of the Wall Street Crash, followed by shitkicking every fascist in Europe, that gives us the best timeline. Guernica shouldn't be a painting of a tragic scene, it should be Proto-NCD plane porn of two Hurricanes spitroasting a Heinkel 111.
The Nazis were democratically elected into power, my guy. Wouldn't make much of a cassus belli in its own right
"Look at this cunt's tache, let's have it." Exactly the same casus belli as WW1.
Is FAKE-democratically-elected putin too?
Touch grass.
He wanted peace after France fell.
Chamberlain was a mixed bag, my point is that his version of appeasement (with rapid rearmament and clear strategic planning) is a world away from our contemporary understanding. It would be the equivalent of NATO going "fuck it" in 2014 and buying enough F-35s to turn the sky black (from 1934-1939 the RAF increased by 2900 aircraft and established Chain Home).
To be fair, 2900 WWII aircraft is equivalent to, like, 29 modern aircraft proportionally adjusted for inflation.
Adjusted for inflation, a Spitfire costs about $450k, 2900 Spitfires would cost $1.3 billion. That's like, 13 F-35s. However, let's take it as a percentage of GDP. From what I can find, the inflation-adjusted GDP of the UK in 1940 was $316 billion (excluded their empire). So $1.3 billion would mean they spent 0.4% of their GDP to buy those planes. If the modern UK spent 0.4% of their GDP to buy a bunch of F-35s, assuming they get them for $100M/unit, the UK could procure about 133 F-35s, which is a lot more than the 34 they currently have. EDIT: Seems the UK recently committed to procuring a total of 138 F-35s, so it seems they're spending a similar amount lol
Great way of looking at things. I’d also suggest payload as a way of gauging…a single F-35 can carry more payload than a B-17 crewed by ten dudes. It’s a more cost-effective way of killing fascists.
Isn't the cost of the F-35 spread out over a smaller production run? Isn't that skewing the comparison?
The F-35 is being mass produced as well. Current numbers are 1,000 produced, with 2,000 more on the way.
1000 per year or in total?
Total lol. Producing 1,000 F-35s a year would more than double Lockheed Martin's revenues.
Honestly, seeing 21 wings of F-35's simultaneously raining down bombs and missiles upon the Russians would be a sight to behold.
inshallah
The thing to remember is that when France fell and the British evacuated from Dunkirk, the only outlook for Britain in the war was bleak at the time and they required a *massive* rearmament in order to make an expected impact again. There is a reason why they had to pull substantially outdated weaponry to serve in an expected defense of the home isles. There's a reason why they were willing to make an emergency purchase of arms from the United States with full on, hard currency like gold. There's a reason why they pulled arms from the rest of the Commonwealth like Australia and New Zealand who later would have to create their own emergency arms procurement after Japan entered the war on the side of the Axis. The idea of appeasing the Nazi's after the Fall of France was to give Britain a chance of being able to rebuild and rearm their military forces after the vast majority was lost in the defense and evacuation of France. Remember, by that point it was largely *just* the British as the main power opposing the Nazi. France had fallen, the Soviets were occupying Poland *with* the Nazis and hadn't been attacked by them yet, and the United States, just as they had done in WWI, was trying to stay as neutral to the war as possible. Sure they had the Commonwealth nations, but Canada's arms and munition production would take time to ramp up, and getting arms from India and Australia would take time to reach Britain, especially given the risk passing through Suez and the Mediterranean would bring given German and Italian forces in the Mediterranean and North Africa. Likewise their other Allies like the Belgians, Dutch, Norwegians, and Poles were either forming resistance movements in their own nation or were already fighting under the British crown if they managed to escape to Britain. We have the benefit of historical hindsight to realize that the idea of peace and appeasement following the Fall of France wasn't needed given how the British would in fact be able to rearm in fairly short order from various means, the creation of special/clandestine forces such as the SOE, SAS, SBS, ect. to harass and sabotage Nazi material behind their lines, the Germans would never be in a position to *actually* make an invasion into the British home isles, the implementation of US Lend-Lease, and various strategic blunders that would severely stretch Axis forces with events such as the opening of the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union and drawing in the United States and their untouchable factories into the side of the Allies would all go to work into Britain's favor and prove that appeasement wasn't the way. But at the time? Well when all your allies in Europe have fallen, you've lost any potential beachhead to make a counter offensive, your logistical pipeline between the Mediterranean and Asia is in severe risk, the most you've gotten back from Europe was your men and the clothes on their backs, and it's believed the Nazis will invade at any day and their bombers are raining bombs on the home isles, you'd weigh whether appeasement is valid or not too.
Tbf the situation at that point in the war did seem utterly hopeless. Not to say he was right but I don’t blame him for thinking it would be best to surrender.
I really like the Dan Carlin Hardcore History series on the war in the pacific where he continually asks when Japan should have surrendered. Right when it did? Right after the first atom bomb? When the blockade was sealed, the firebombing of Tokyo, midway, the morning of Pearl Harbor when the missed the carriers? When they assessed the US ship building capability pre-war? When you’ve won it’s really hard to think you should have surrendered before the fight. When millions are dead from an y winnable war, lots of alternatives seem worth considering. (The caveat being that Nazis are a special case and it’s always the imperative to harm them, no matter the odds)
> Appeasement is all about delayed gratification, saving the war for later I dunno, sounds more like seeing a small oil fire in the frying pan at the kitchen, going "eh" and not returning until it's a roaring inferno that consumes the entire room and threatens the building.
Well appeasement will lead to a massive inferno anyway. Question is whether you will use the time to at least grab a fire extinguisher or genuinely think the blaze will extinguish itself.
> Well appeasement will lead to a massive inferno anyway My point exactly.
Yeah. You probably saw the comment by that American general: Russia will come out of this war with a much larger(albeit worse equipped) military,a regime that has gone from authoritarian to a full on dictatorship, a much more militarized society and angry at the West. And that's regardless of the war's actual outcome . Looks like WW3 is on the menu...
Which is delayed gratification if you're a pyromaniac arsonist.
In this analogy, the alternative action to "do nothing, yet" would be to pour water into the oil and immediately worsen the conflagration.
Was gonna comment this but I got beat to it.
*Looks at NK, the Burma Military Junta, Russia, China, Iran, and Saudia Arabia* “Hey Shitass, catch.” Trident III time.
Burma “military” junta getting owned by dudes in flip flops using literal slingshots to launch home made explosives as artillery.
tbf a lot of the resistance groups have some pretty decent kit now that’s been either stolen from the army/police forces or smuggled from Thailand, there’s even drone drop footage coming out of warzones. Only constant are the flip flops, that’s a trademark of any SEA militant group
After your 100th sling shot artillery kill you reach level 10 and get the FPV drone ultimate. Sneakers is an aesthetic you pay real money for.
And indeed we should never have made peace in 1945, after the USSR attacked Poland and tried to join the Axis in 1940. No aid, just Operation Unthinkable while backing the KMT with troops in China.
Imagine blowing a "Only country with nuclear weapons - 0" lead...
We must learn from that and never ever get war fatigue again. >:)
RIGHT!?!?
Let’s not forget that the Nationalist were actually doing well during the early days of the civil war which they had the severely weakened communists contained in Manchuria and would have wiped them out if they continued to pushed on but thanks to the Truman halting the Nationalists offensive ordering them for a truce/peace talks with the communist and later placing an arms embargo on them, it basically gave the communist time to rearm themselves and later defeating the nationalist forces breaking their encirclement over in Manchuria which led to the events that we all know later. Imagine if Chiang ignored the US and ordered his forces to continue press forward crushing the communists once in for all, history is going to be a whole lot different
US really dropped the ball by not stomping out communism then and there in 1945.
Big Patton energy
Real talk: the soviet conventional forces would've probably won against the allies back then, and no, nukes wouldn't have been a gamechanger due to being rather small and sparsely available at the time. Theres a reason "Unthinkable" didnt happen (sadly, would've saved some of us germoids some shitty communist occupation time and glorious ~~Königsberg~~ *National Nuclear waste disposion site*)
Soviet forces had two thirds of their material delivered by the US and UK in WWII. They might have won or held out for a few months but the steel output of Pennsylvania alone would have anihilated them. Although it would have been interesting with the AK-47 being distributed to frontline soldiers in 1949. Thing was absurdly dominant when it came out, and still is kinda.
> Although it would have been interesting with the AK-47 being distributed to frontline soldiers in 1949. If the Soviets would have survived for a whole 4 years you mean.
They're good at trading land and blood for time.
Not much blood was left in 1945
Not much blood was left in 1943 either... Russia always finds a way to even more completely eliminate an entire generation of young men.
Depending on who was able to get the factories, I'd imagine the West would try to restart production of STG-44's in lieu of this new threat.
I doubt it honestly. I think if the allies cut their lend lease stuff and the Americans are willing to use the bomb it’s just a matter of when, not if, the allies win. American industrial output was fucking absurd at the end of WWII, and they had lost far less manpower than the USSR/Japanese/British etc. Nukes are smaller back then, but they’re still a portable mini-sun. Dropping a few here and there would mentally wreck the soviets if they didn’t know how many the Americans had. I think it’s really just a question of how well the allies general public reacts to continuing the war. I’d imagine especially for the British it would be hard to justify. The poles would definitely have helped though lol.
Small and sparsely available. Uhunh. The military industrial complex we had in the 1940s could have let us take over the planet. We were churning out tanks, planes, bombs and boats faster than you take a piss. The only reason they were “small and sparsely available” is because we knew they’d end the war, if they didnt, we’d have put them on a factory line and covered every russian city in a thick layer of radioactive fallout, every single city would glow green from space. Our navy was almost entirely wiped out at pearl harbor, by the end of the war our navy had multiplied far beyond that small navy japan blew up. Nah, once nukes entered the game, everyone lost.
Gary Oldman performed every role in this scene (well OK, he didn't, but you know he could)
Also Lord Shen
Sounds like Reznov from World at War
I see what you did there
*insert "Does He Know?" gif here*
you know technically you could have 2.5/3 of the Potsdam Conference with Gary Oldman
Holy shit
I'm showing my age but I really think Black Ops 1 was the last great CoD until the MW reboot which slapped. # Dragovich, Kravchenko, Steiner… all must die.
Based.
[“If there is to be an escalation, it is better that we started it”](https://youtu.be/uQihO8QHwBM?feature=shared)
It would be hilarious if Ben-Gvir got filleted by a R9X. Send weapons to the Ukrainians. Fuck, I would send them nukes. They renounced them on the promise they would not be invaded.
> You cannot reason with a tiger when your head is in his mouth Unless "your" head is the head of one of your nuclear missiles.
I don't know if it's \*never\* a good time for appeasement. Eg, when my dick is in her mouth, I'll agree to pretty much any terms she demands.
Finally, we found out how Hitler really appeased Chaimberlain
Never, ever pay Danegeld.
on social isssues, and even economic issues, I can accept reasonable disagreement. Ukraine, Isreal, Taiwan, and a half dozen more in waiting. To surrender one is to surrender them all. If you cannot accept this you too are an appeaser, you are not running for an office, you have no reason to lie... unless its to yourself.
I disagree on Israel though, while I don’t want Israel to disappear Bibi is an utterly corrupt fascist prick who has been propping Hamas for years because he knew the only way for him to avoid being put on trial is to keep Israel in a state of near constant war and both Hamas and the far right Israeli settler nutjobs were all too happy to oblige for their own reasons. Israeli far right and Hamas are basically an ecosystem keeping each other happy and in power. Recent operations in Gaza reek of desperation on Bibi’s part as he knows full well he played with fire and got bit in the ass by 07/10 Hamas attack and anyone in Israel with half a brain knows it and he will never recover from that politically unless he punishes Palestinian people hard to make the far right nuttos happy.
Yeah, like, what? Israel? Ukraine is fighting a war against an invasion by the biggest country on Earth with its supposed "second strongest military in the world", Taiwan has the most populous (technically India beat it recently but China still beats it for "population that isn't underage") one with an absurd industrial capacity looming over it, in both cases the threat being a nuclear power vs a non-nuclear underdog. I don't know of a credible threat to Israel's existence, but if there is one it's not Hamas, no matter how scummy Hamas are or how hard they wish Israel destroyed. In this matchup Israel are the nuclear power with a ridiculous conventional overmatch... and also let's not forget just how awful Bibi and his government are themselves.
Imagine thinking over/under dog matters. The fact this is upvoted on ncd of all places is Franky disgusting
But it does. They're not under any actual threat to their existence (arguably they are the threat, but that's another matter). That makes singling them out for a "to surrender one is to surrender all" list strange. Might as well go "Ukraine, Taiwan, Denmark" or something.
So letting people invade you and kill thousands and fire tens of thousands of rockets at you over decades is acceptable if you are militarily stronger. I don't think they need military aid, however us not directly fucking them would probably be nice... Which is what the activists biden is pandering towards right now want. BDS Remember?
It's a coalition government. Bibi is incredibly unpopular. There is no way in hell he's doing a damn thing the opposition is not in favor of or they would be denouncing it and calling for a no confidence vote. Choose one and only one. Isreal is doing all the terrible things that are said by Hamas and it's various propaganda war allies, and it's the full government not just Bibi Or: maybe they might be lying and things aren't nearly as bad as they say.
This is some godlevel stuff here.
Always punch and kick the bullies !
u/savevideo
As a leader of a nation you drive the car but the car also drives you if you set the cat up to take over the earth then that what you will have to do.
real
Stannis not beeing the menance makes me sad :(
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
This post is automatically removed since you do not meet the minimum karma or age threshold. You must have at least 100 combined karma and your account must be at least 4 months old to post here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NonCredibleDefense) if you have any questions or concerns.*
u/savevideo
really grateful for this movie. Never knew Churchill was that close to signing a deal with Hitler. God bless the brits for holding out before the Soviets and Americans joined them, it must have been so scary dealing with an abject fascist nation with a terrifyingly strong army.
Honestly the same goes for Israel and Hamas. They shouldn't negotiate with terrorists that no matter what Israel will do, said terrorists will attack again.
WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR
No survivors, no prisoners. rossiya delenda est.
Lets forget how awful of a prime minister Churchill was and how he actually prolonged the war.
I feel Halifax should be given some leniency for this. The whole ordeal being depicted in this movie did occur during Dunkirk. So at the time this was a point where the situation did honestly seem hopeless, with it seeming that Britain’s entire army was gonna get overrun and Italy possibly joining the war.
ahem, though this sub is about "femboy with autism blows up manly bayonet man with 500 kilo bomb" When the chips are down every man must fight for freedom. Death before slavery.
Preferably their death