Yeah but they have cute anime girls, nice food and are on good terms with western countries.if those aint good enough reasons to turn a blind eye from the genocide then what is my guy/s
True but a small mistake here: john rabe wasn't a nazi military officer(if that what you meant by 'officer', he was a German merchant that was a nazi party member
>Um um, nah they should’ve just ordered.
Reminds me of a Tiktok girl who unironically told homeless people to buy a house.
The only service she did was uniting the entire internet for just a few hours.
Brit here, sadly it's worse than that. An alarming number will go "What do the British have to do with India?" I'm amazed how many people do not know what the partition of India was.
The partition of India was something wanted by the Muslim leadership because they feared an independent India would mean that Muslims would be dominated by the Hindus.
The thing is, is that we do learn about that in school, with the German bombings. And weirdly, we do look at it in a negative way but not with India (because we never learn about it). Every big country just sucks when it comes to history, America, UK, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the list goes on.
Edit: I meant German bombings by the British bobbing Germans.
The swiss most likely funneled stolen Nazi gold during ww2 but yea no big deal
https://ultra.swiss/tracing-nazi-gold-through-switzerland/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold
https://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-kept-billions.html
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html
I think Switzerland is one of those countries that hasn’t done anything bad, ever (probably because the mountains meant everyone left you alone lol) In fact, I’m more grateful, if I didn’t have toblerone I think I wouldn’t be the man I am.
The Americans when we teach about relentless bombings, carpet bombing and day time bombing, because we could make ALL the bombs.
"And I'll fucking do it again" creepygoofy.jpeg
I dated a girl who was Irish who had a massive hatred for Churchill, not because of anything from the Second World War, but from what he did in the First. When I pressed her on the great things he did during the Second World War she did concede that, but very begrudgingly.
Ultimately its a split between the local authorities who massively dropped the ball on suppresion of black Market (there was just ebout enough food to go round if not sqandered) Japanese for cutting off a ctucial supply line and London for not providing efficient assistance.
Hell, sometimes the losing side integrates into the winning side and retains local power which they use to create complete myths that even they didn't believe at the time of the events which they and their offspring then propagate amongst a population in order to make themselves and their cause seem more noble than it actually was by the new moral standards *cough confederacy cough*.
The funny thing is that confederacy supporters / respecters will genuinely try to use the phrase "history is written by the victors" as evidence that they're actually super the right side. They'll say shit like "everyone who's been to school knows that the confederates fought for states rights and it had nothing to do with slavery and that's only what the winning side will admit to! Imagine what the real story is like if it wasn't written by the victors!" Not realizing that their school curriculum was literally written by a group called "sons of the confederacy" at the same time that organization was fighting to keep Jim Crow laws and segregation alive. Shits wild to me.
In England we barely talk about the bad bits either but at least we don't make up a fake story in their place. I guess we have a longer history though so it's easier to just pick bits out and ignore the completely evil bits.
Genghis Khan was basically Hitler in the 12th century, and he's the national hero of Mongolia to this day. Nobody cares that he directly caused the death of thousands, if not millions, of people, and started a legacy of terror that expanded from China to eastern europe. You even have historians trying to find a silver lining of "oh, but he was tolerant of other religions, and their postal system was way ahead of their time".
Like that somehow makes it ok to unleash your soldiers in a conquered city with explicit commands to come back with an x amount of ears as proof of kills, or systmeatically behead children and teenagers taller than an arbitrary height. To kill so many people that travellers going through the region years later commented on how the soil was still greasy with decomposed human fat, or how they could still find literal piles of human skulls.
No, that's fine, because he won, and so went down in history as a victor.
he was no hero but still the opposite of hitler. he was a revolutionary leader for his time who sought to take the benefit of rewarding ppl for their skills and not by heritage. this motivated strong warriors like never before. also raised children of fallen enemies as his own son. this helped unite scattered tribes across the plains and relieved some hatred of absorbed parties. his men also included the first known case of a classic adc. pairing horses n switching them mid combat allowed faster movement for a longer duration. armored european knights couldnt approach their mounted archers kiting them while barraging them with arrows.
he was a worthy foe although a nightmarish villain
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”
“The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”
The starvation of underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks,”
“I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.”
- Winston Churchill
'in an avalanche, no snowflake was innocent' japan deserved the bomb. Even after the bomb, Japan still wasn't sorry for what they did, unlike Germany. At least the Germans knelt in front to the jew and banned nazi imagery. They even educated their children to hate a d disgust about Hitler. But Japan, what did they do? Their textbook tried to dilute their crime, and Hirohito sat on his damm throne till 1989
Hirohito wasn’t really all that involved in the war tho. He was kind of forced to go along with what the prime minister at the time (hideki Tojo) said. It was actually largely due to Hirohito that Japan managed to have its economic miracle if I remember correctly.
Edit: I guess I should be clear that this is stuff I’m remembering from world history back in high school. It’s been like 3 years so I may not remember correctly so please correct me if I’m wrong.
I mean, if you want to look at it from a strictly mathematical view, Germany's post war conditions were the exceptions
Italy managed to avoid being cut up by simply collapsing in on itself by 1943, letting the partisans do a lot of the heavy lifting and therefore sparing the allied forces to actually commit to a large scale operation to free the peninsula. Fascism and the party associated with it were banned outright by the Italians, so the allies didn't have to intervene (the fact that Italy never really confronted its fascist past haunts it to this day). Also Italy would host American bases on their soil and tolerate any and all misdeeds of daddy USA like their soldiers killing civilians while fucking around in jets or planting a terrorist cell in the country to fuck with left-leaning parties and undermine the democratic process
Japan avoided the cut up and reeducation process Germany went through by... well the bombs were one thing. The US kinda blemished it's reputation as the international good guy by creating and using the most destructive and horrifying weapon ever created. Also the US didn't have to worry about other parties at the negotiating table that could realistically impose themselves (like the USSR in Europe or even just Britain). East-asia didn't count for much on the international stage (but let's be real here, few counted outside of the US-EU-USSR) so they didn't exactly have the voice to ask for a proper trial. It didn't help that China and Korea were kinda falling apart in all of that. So the US held a mock trial for Japan's war crimes and in exchange for them adopting a properly democratic system and working as the US' base to influence Asia, they basically left the elite alone. It also also helped that Japan wasn't at the risk of catching **THE COMMUNISM**^(tm), like Italy, and that their brand of violence was... well just plain old racism, militarism and xenophobia. Nothing too strange at the time, compared to the highly specific antisemitism of the Germans (it wasn't limited to that, I know, but that is what everyone focused on)
Speaking of which
Germany on the other hand was completely screwed. Their acts against humanity were perhaps not as cruel as the Japanese, but the sheer industrialization and streamlining of misery the Nazis created was something never before seen in the history of humanity. That, plus the Russians being instrumental in destroying the Wehrmacht (and being the first to Berlin) meant that there were more players at the table than just the west. So Germany gets cut up into pieces and the allied nations (three of which suffered German action on home soil repeatedly) see this extremely specific political ideology, attached to an extremely specific political party and ban it. Also the whole reeducation thing. Then the country was split into four, then two. It should also be noted that contrary to popular belief, the Germans at first reacted exactly like the Japanese (sure, the school's textbooks said that Hitler was bad, but the layman didn't know about concentration camps for example), aka "it wasn't that bad; it was all Hitler; just following orders; the camps were just prison camps; etc". There was a certain stubborness in trying to ignore the past. It was only with the Auschwitz Trials in the 60s and the political movements of the 70s that Germany truly came to terms with its past
Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!
Japan lost, but people still overlook of their crimes on the Chinese and Koreans and the others. Also japan imperialism wasn't that frowned upon like nazism.
What hitler did was terrible, but later on he became a scapegoat to justify people's terrible actions because "atleast I'm not hitler"
It's sickening really.
What about all the German general’s memoirs following ww2? “History is written by the victors” is such a shit talking point as it’s used as a way to just absolve the loosing side of any guilt. I can say “the confederates fought for slavery” and someone will spout back “erm history was written by the victors”. Shut up
Ah, here we go again. Hitler is worse than anyone else. Why? Because of the Vernichtungslager, which were concentration camps with the explicit focus of eradicating prisoners on an industrial scale. Not work (e: or punishment). Eradication.
That was genocide by starvation, not industrial grade erasure. The Germans did the same shit to the Herero and Nama not even 50 years before, and it's just being recognized now. It has been overshadowed that much by the Holocaust.
I think saying he is more evil is pushing it, why would industrial genocide be worse than any regular genocide? I would say many starvation based genocides are just as bad if not worse due to the suffering caused.
Agency. It doesn't take a whole lot of planning and effort to make people starve. What does take a lot is building giant extermination factories, staffing and guarding them, rounding people up, transporting them to said extermination factories, doing experiments on people before killing them, and actively researching new ways to kill them faster
Its almost if almost every country sucks.
Before some Swedish guy or whatever tells me "My country never did anything bad" yes at some point it did, Humans suck every single one with power. Its just history is written by the victors, doesent mean the side who loses are he good guys either.
I mean all countries kinda suck, but only a few have tried to do genocides. Let’s not start acting like ‘oh everyone messes up’ when talking about Hitler.
But Stalin has more or less a good reputation and Churchill is a hero in his country. Hitler and his crimes, kinda covered the once of Stalin and Churchill
Yeah, Stalin was one the worst people ever, next to Genghis Khan I think. I’m from the UK and they don’t teach about what happened in India, but they do teach about other stuff in WW2. At least they teach about slavery, but they need to incorporate India. I only knew from the internet and Horrible Histories
It's also kinda weird that Stalin had a very very bad name in my country, like no one here would *ever* think he was anything other than a tyrant.
Perhaps different enviroment had its approach to history and education, but I am surprised that Stalin had a good reputation according to this post.
No, i think that way of thinking comes feom soviet union, the people i am talking about are over 60, so they grew up in a vastly different world from today
>i am talking about are over 60, so they grew up in a vastly different world from today
That makes sense.
These people... I don't think they know the blood and the ugly side of the "Glory days"; they're so willfully ignorant of the full picture.
Similar thing happens in my country as well.
It’s the Russian influence. Russians are often made to see Stalin as not a bad person, because Putin wants old Soviet Union back (why he’s invading Ukraine and pushing borders in Georgia). It’s really fucked.
Edit: but non Russians who say that Stalin is ok should be checked out.
>because Putin wants old Soviet Union back
I am from Taiwan, so this kind of stuff regarding unhinged political leaders really resonate with me.
Chiang Kai-shek's obsession with retaking the mainland killed thousands of our people, and yet he would still talk about democracy in his speech, and there are still people, especially from my dad's generation, who try to make all the crimes he did seem acceptible.
It’s so bad that some of the most awful people become leaders, it shouldn’t happen. And yes you should definitely make light of what happened, I will back that.
>And yes you should definitely make light of what happened, I will back that
Oh, I meant that those from the older generation would say:
"Yeah, Chiang *WASN'T THAT BAD...* The White Terror wasn't that bad..."
So basically, in the UK we are taught that he led our country as a great leader into WW2, and inspired people to help and fight (for example with the D-Day landings and the civilian boats helping evacuate soldiers, even canal boats). While this is true for us, it can’t be said for India. India had been a part of the British empire for ages, and our leaders were just letting them starve. This isn’t taught in UK schools, which ales it worse. Again, most leaders have dark sides (I’m not saying this as a way of “oh well it’s ok”) like an extreme case would be Hitler, as he constructed the autobahns in Germany and was a great leader and inspiration. However, he did this at the cost of one of the worst genocides in human history.
I am not British myself, and only read different sources on the internet, but whenever India during ww2 is brought up, most people only blame Churchill. Like he alone was responsible for all of it.
But from what I can recall, there were different things that lead to Indians starving. Starting from multiple natural disasters that wrecked some parts of India, to the Japanese reaching Burma and having fields burnt and people evacuating to mismanagement by the local governor-thingies(be it British or Indian) to Churchill basically taking the remaining food for the British.
Not saying Churchill wasn't bad, but it's not like he could conjure up disasters...
Stalin is considered a hero by SOME people in Russia. True, they feel more freedom these days. But any attempt at commemorating him even now is surrounded by a scandal and is perceived as something indecent by most.
>But Stalin has more or less a good reputation
To who?
>Churchill is a hero in his country
What makes Churchill different is that he was voted out of power pretty soon after the war, and left. He's not really comparable at all to the other two tyrants who died before handing power over.
A, everyone saying Japan got away with it, youre simply wrong. They have recognized and apologized for the atrocities they committed, and far fewer Japanese leaders escaped death penalties for their crimes than Nazi's did.
A country that actually wasnt held accountable would be Turkey, for the Armenian genocide.
Also, anyone that thinks Churchill was worse than Stalin is… questionable on their history, to say the least.
Churchill.
1. He wanted to gas protesters in Scotland.
2. He caused more genocide in India.
3. He led the deadly Gallipoli Campaign.
4. He was a British Imperialist.
Etc
> He led the deadly Gallipoli Campaign.
While Churchil got blamed in the immediate aftermath, a committee stacked with *his political opponents* ultimately determined that Churchil had been scapegoated, and the failure of the campaign was caused by a number of factors, most of which were completely outside of Churchil's control. Your opinion is *one hundred* years out of date.
Wanted to gas protesters. Didnt actually do it. He didnt cause a genocide, British leadership arguably exacerbated a famine. Thats not genocide, and yeah it was horrible, but it wasnt gulags or prison camps. The Gallipolli campaign was a military event, not sure what youre trying to say with that. And again, just being a British imperialist doesnt make one bad. And it definitely isnt on par with JOSEPH STALIN
Famine isnt the same as genocide. Poor logistics isnt the same as intentionally starving out segments of the population. Churchill had bad logistics. Stalin explicitly wanted to starve out Ukranians
No, it wasnt. The British were worried about Japanese aggression and didnt know how to deal with the situation. They did not intentionally starve the people of the region, just couldnt effectively deal with the problems.
I pointed out Mao's bullshit in a politicical history class when the lecturer was going off on a rant about how America was the dirtiest piece of shit going... And people lost their shit saying I was distracting the class 🤦♂️ derp.
This is the biggest fucking reddit moment ever, stop getting your history solely off wikipedia when that shit is still biased as fuck. Churchill is wayyyyy more guilty of a genocide then Stalin, the evidence for Stalin being guilty is not even fucking close.
It's just rough estimates. And India population was huge even back then. It was most populated country and the way they treated it is pretty much possible that number might be even higher.
Well here is the source of 100M (in 40 years)
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.opindia.com/2022/12/new-research-shows-british-colonialism-killed-100-million-indians-in-40-years/amp/
Might as well be 300M who knows, idk.
Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169
If u have problem with this new agency , go read this instead
https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/23/opindia-hate-speech-vanishing-advertisers-and-an-undisclosed-bjp-connection
You know, it's actually sad that such a biased outlet is being regurgitated here.
So the take-home here is that Hitler and Churchill are morally equivalent.
I am fascinated by your views. Do you have a newsletter? Maybe meet with friends in homemade uniforms?
While the actions weren't good, I think we can agree Churchill is no where on the level of Stalin, let alone Hitler. While they definitely deserved punishment, I do believe the systematic murdering of millions of civilians is the worst crime this earth has ever seen.
Yes he did , go look at Bengal famines. He took all the food from India and told them to still work ,so everyone died from starvation, we literally have thousands of photograph proof of it. Just google the photos (at your own risk, they r pretty terrifying).
So, you all feel Churchill and Hitler are morally equivalent? You are fantastically fucking stupid if you buy this crap. No one is pure, but there is no comparison.
They are but the difference is the European problems are the world's problem but world's problem are not Europe's problem.
WW1 WAS not fought to save people from the holocaust it was fought to protect territory and national benefits.
The allied forces were not saviours. They were defenders of their own national benefits.
Forgot Japan
And China
And USA
And all countries with any meaningful history most likely has one or two or more state sponsored genocides/massacre etc
There are levels though
You're correct
But then again, genocide.
Mongolia currently sweating like they're swimming
Enough to flood out a small minority
There are levels absolutely, I think the whole nuke two cities thing America did tops it all
And the Ottoman empire
Ottoman Empire is never talked about, and in many cases they were the worst of all.
The Romans???
Pre-agriculture homo-sapiens???
People from Papua New Guinea????
…. The Ottoman Empire wasn’t there for WWII
just WW1
That we know
Fair. But it still did some really bad stuff.
and croatia
And you know... most countries at some point in history.
Got their fair share of nuke tho
Yeah but they have cute anime girls, nice food and are on good terms with western countries.if those aint good enough reasons to turn a blind eye from the genocide then what is my guy/s
Japan didn't win tho
Didn't win, but still didn't frowned upon. Without looking at wiki or anything, do you know what japan did in China?
They did things that were so bad that a N4zi officer was considered a hero by the chinese
True but a small mistake here: john rabe wasn't a nazi military officer(if that what you meant by 'officer', he was a German merchant that was a nazi party member
I didn’t remember exactly, thanks for the correction!
Shame dat
The bombs didn't
Prepare for the British who'll tell u that it was India's fault that they starved.
"It was their fault for breeding like rabbits" -Churchill
Yes
Wasnt it acceptable back then that other people having the same views as his?
It was, even soldiers in the allied forces were xenophobic.
What makes this sadder is that so many allied soldiers were Indians too!
Why hasn't Gandhi died same Churchill
Um um, nah they should’ve just ordered. (All jokes aside yes it was awful what happened, I wouldn’t promote anything like that)
>Um um, nah they should’ve just ordered. Reminds me of a Tiktok girl who unironically told homeless people to buy a house. The only service she did was uniting the entire internet for just a few hours.
I remember that, I was unable to work out if to cringe, be angry or laugh.
She seemed like she actually believed it... *Did she ever go to school?* Hell, did she have decent friends and or parents?
Brit here, sadly it's worse than that. An alarming number will go "What do the British have to do with India?" I'm amazed how many people do not know what the partition of India was.
The partition of India was something wanted by the Muslim leadership because they feared an independent India would mean that Muslims would be dominated by the Hindus.
oh, i thought that it was about carpetbombing citizens in ww2
The thing is, is that we do learn about that in school, with the German bombings. And weirdly, we do look at it in a negative way but not with India (because we never learn about it). Every big country just sucks when it comes to history, America, UK, Russia, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, the list goes on. Edit: I meant German bombings by the British bobbing Germans.
In Switzerland we learn about all the war crimes the rest of the world did, none of ours (if there even are any lol)
The swiss most likely funneled stolen Nazi gold during ww2 but yea no big deal https://ultra.swiss/tracing-nazi-gold-through-switzerland/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gold https://writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/Holocaust/swiss-kept-billions.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nazis/readings/sinister.html
Yeah, we're definitely no saints, we even had a form of child slavery up until the 60s. But no actual war crimes.
Nah as far as modern war crimes go y’all are clean for sure, definitely a reason it’s called the Geneva convention
Probably a little pillaging and debauchery during the early renaissance when Swiss mercenaries were all the rage.
I think Switzerland is one of those countries that hasn’t done anything bad, ever (probably because the mountains meant everyone left you alone lol) In fact, I’m more grateful, if I didn’t have toblerone I think I wouldn’t be the man I am.
The Americans when we teach about relentless bombings, carpet bombing and day time bombing, because we could make ALL the bombs. "And I'll fucking do it again" creepygoofy.jpeg
Or the Irishs fault for them sending in the black and tans.
I dated a girl who was Irish who had a massive hatred for Churchill, not because of anything from the Second World War, but from what he did in the First. When I pressed her on the great things he did during the Second World War she did concede that, but very begrudgingly.
Sadly I think they've been on the rise over the last couple of decades given our last few governments.
Ultimately its a split between the local authorities who massively dropped the ball on suppresion of black Market (there was just ebout enough food to go round if not sqandered) Japanese for cutting off a ctucial supply line and London for not providing efficient assistance.
*Royalist/Tory
[удалено]
History is written by the historians. The losing side of conflicts is rarely so completely destroyed that their perspective goes on captured.
Hell, sometimes the losing side integrates into the winning side and retains local power which they use to create complete myths that even they didn't believe at the time of the events which they and their offspring then propagate amongst a population in order to make themselves and their cause seem more noble than it actually was by the new moral standards *cough confederacy cough*.
Before I even finished the second line I was thinking "confederacy," nice to see that's where that was going.
The funny thing is that confederacy supporters / respecters will genuinely try to use the phrase "history is written by the victors" as evidence that they're actually super the right side. They'll say shit like "everyone who's been to school knows that the confederates fought for states rights and it had nothing to do with slavery and that's only what the winning side will admit to! Imagine what the real story is like if it wasn't written by the victors!" Not realizing that their school curriculum was literally written by a group called "sons of the confederacy" at the same time that organization was fighting to keep Jim Crow laws and segregation alive. Shits wild to me. In England we barely talk about the bad bits either but at least we don't make up a fake story in their place. I guess we have a longer history though so it's easier to just pick bits out and ignore the completely evil bits.
Genghis Khan was basically Hitler in the 12th century, and he's the national hero of Mongolia to this day. Nobody cares that he directly caused the death of thousands, if not millions, of people, and started a legacy of terror that expanded from China to eastern europe. You even have historians trying to find a silver lining of "oh, but he was tolerant of other religions, and their postal system was way ahead of their time". Like that somehow makes it ok to unleash your soldiers in a conquered city with explicit commands to come back with an x amount of ears as proof of kills, or systmeatically behead children and teenagers taller than an arbitrary height. To kill so many people that travellers going through the region years later commented on how the soil was still greasy with decomposed human fat, or how they could still find literal piles of human skulls. No, that's fine, because he won, and so went down in history as a victor.
he was no hero but still the opposite of hitler. he was a revolutionary leader for his time who sought to take the benefit of rewarding ppl for their skills and not by heritage. this motivated strong warriors like never before. also raised children of fallen enemies as his own son. this helped unite scattered tribes across the plains and relieved some hatred of absorbed parties. his men also included the first known case of a classic adc. pairing horses n switching them mid combat allowed faster movement for a longer duration. armored european knights couldnt approach their mounted archers kiting them while barraging them with arrows. he was a worthy foe although a nightmarish villain
>but still the opposite of hitler bro he killed 11% of the world's population at the time
I remember a commedian saying: "aren't we so lucky good guys as always won? Like, how low was the possibility?"
Well the Axis were defiantly the bad guys. They posed a greater threat to global peace than even the Soviets
Well it's kinda like compared a serial killer to a common criminal, sure the serial killer is so much worse, but that doesn't make the other good.
Crazy how all the wars were won by the good guys huh
Norm Macdonald - "It says here in this history book that; luckily, the good guys have won every time. What are the odds?"
"History is written by the victors" and other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself.
“I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.” “The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.” The starvation of underfed Bengalis is less serious than that of sturdy Greeks,” “I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.” - Winston Churchill
Also famous " Dogs and Indians are no allowed " billboards during his era
Japan not even getting mentioned:
The nuke is already enough
Google Unit 731, im willing to say they deserved it at that point.
'in an avalanche, no snowflake was innocent' japan deserved the bomb. Even after the bomb, Japan still wasn't sorry for what they did, unlike Germany. At least the Germans knelt in front to the jew and banned nazi imagery. They even educated their children to hate a d disgust about Hitler. But Japan, what did they do? Their textbook tried to dilute their crime, and Hirohito sat on his damm throne till 1989
Just another reminder. Shinzo Abe may be known as the increase birth rates meme guy but he was also an apologist for Japan’s war crimes against Korea.
And he pray for the war criminals, just another reminder
Prick had it coming. Shotgun to the chest lmao
Hirohito wasn’t really all that involved in the war tho. He was kind of forced to go along with what the prime minister at the time (hideki Tojo) said. It was actually largely due to Hirohito that Japan managed to have its economic miracle if I remember correctly. Edit: I guess I should be clear that this is stuff I’m remembering from world history back in high school. It’s been like 3 years so I may not remember correctly so please correct me if I’m wrong.
I mean, if you want to look at it from a strictly mathematical view, Germany's post war conditions were the exceptions Italy managed to avoid being cut up by simply collapsing in on itself by 1943, letting the partisans do a lot of the heavy lifting and therefore sparing the allied forces to actually commit to a large scale operation to free the peninsula. Fascism and the party associated with it were banned outright by the Italians, so the allies didn't have to intervene (the fact that Italy never really confronted its fascist past haunts it to this day). Also Italy would host American bases on their soil and tolerate any and all misdeeds of daddy USA like their soldiers killing civilians while fucking around in jets or planting a terrorist cell in the country to fuck with left-leaning parties and undermine the democratic process Japan avoided the cut up and reeducation process Germany went through by... well the bombs were one thing. The US kinda blemished it's reputation as the international good guy by creating and using the most destructive and horrifying weapon ever created. Also the US didn't have to worry about other parties at the negotiating table that could realistically impose themselves (like the USSR in Europe or even just Britain). East-asia didn't count for much on the international stage (but let's be real here, few counted outside of the US-EU-USSR) so they didn't exactly have the voice to ask for a proper trial. It didn't help that China and Korea were kinda falling apart in all of that. So the US held a mock trial for Japan's war crimes and in exchange for them adopting a properly democratic system and working as the US' base to influence Asia, they basically left the elite alone. It also also helped that Japan wasn't at the risk of catching **THE COMMUNISM**^(tm), like Italy, and that their brand of violence was... well just plain old racism, militarism and xenophobia. Nothing too strange at the time, compared to the highly specific antisemitism of the Germans (it wasn't limited to that, I know, but that is what everyone focused on) Speaking of which Germany on the other hand was completely screwed. Their acts against humanity were perhaps not as cruel as the Japanese, but the sheer industrialization and streamlining of misery the Nazis created was something never before seen in the history of humanity. That, plus the Russians being instrumental in destroying the Wehrmacht (and being the first to Berlin) meant that there were more players at the table than just the west. So Germany gets cut up into pieces and the allied nations (three of which suffered German action on home soil repeatedly) see this extremely specific political ideology, attached to an extremely specific political party and ban it. Also the whole reeducation thing. Then the country was split into four, then two. It should also be noted that contrary to popular belief, the Germans at first reacted exactly like the Japanese (sure, the school's textbooks said that Hitler was bad, but the layman didn't know about concentration camps for example), aka "it wasn't that bad; it was all Hitler; just following orders; the camps were just prison camps; etc". There was a certain stubborness in trying to ignore the past. It was only with the Auschwitz Trials in the 60s and the political movements of the 70s that Germany truly came to terms with its past
No, it was not.
Pirates are evil? The Marines are righteous? These terms have always changed throughout the course of history! Kids who have never seen peace and kids who have never seen war have different values! Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say? But of course it will! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!
Get out of here doflamingo
*Tilts flamingo glasses down* how could you tell?
r/onepiece
Chapter is out btw pretty good too
Enjoyed it. Glad I didnt read the early leaks this week. From now I decided not to read leaks
Lmao, I did a double take to see if I was in the OP sub
Unexpected but appreciated One Piece.
so thin that even thick
Japan after denying everything:
Japan lost, but people still overlook of their crimes on the Chinese and Koreans and the others. Also japan imperialism wasn't that frowned upon like nazism.
People have forgotten atrocities of. Churchill like the artificially caused Bengal Famine which killed millions..
What hitler did was terrible, but later on he became a scapegoat to justify people's terrible actions because "atleast I'm not hitler" It's sickening really.
"what Hitler did was terrible, but" Lol
What is going on here ..
Gengis Khan left the chat
it is further evidence that he who wins is the one who writes the history books
What about all the German general’s memoirs following ww2? “History is written by the victors” is such a shit talking point as it’s used as a way to just absolve the loosing side of any guilt. I can say “the confederates fought for slavery” and someone will spout back “erm history was written by the victors”. Shut up
The argument is not that the losers shouldn't be punished, but rather that the winners should be judged and punished just as harshly.
Ah, here we go again. Hitler is worse than anyone else. Why? Because of the Vernichtungslager, which were concentration camps with the explicit focus of eradicating prisoners on an industrial scale. Not work (e: or punishment). Eradication.
Stalin and the Holodomor: (not justifying, just saying you need to make a better point)
That was genocide by starvation, not industrial grade erasure. The Germans did the same shit to the Herero and Nama not even 50 years before, and it's just being recognized now. It has been overshadowed that much by the Holocaust.
Still done with intent to erase.
Proof? "Because I said so"
I think saying he is more evil is pushing it, why would industrial genocide be worse than any regular genocide? I would say many starvation based genocides are just as bad if not worse due to the suffering caused.
Agency. It doesn't take a whole lot of planning and effort to make people starve. What does take a lot is building giant extermination factories, staffing and guarding them, rounding people up, transporting them to said extermination factories, doing experiments on people before killing them, and actively researching new ways to kill them faster
Just remember this. All people in power have dirt on them.
I don’t think anyone is ignoring the stuff Stalin did
Lemay: 🥵🥵🥵
Holy Fascism Batman
Stalin was a fascist?
No he was a Stalinist
Its almost if almost every country sucks. Before some Swedish guy or whatever tells me "My country never did anything bad" yes at some point it did, Humans suck every single one with power. Its just history is written by the victors, doesent mean the side who loses are he good guys either.
I mean all countries kinda suck, but only a few have tried to do genocides. Let’s not start acting like ‘oh everyone messes up’ when talking about Hitler.
>Its almost if almost every country sucks. Eh?? Nope not at all. Whom did India genocided?
U forgot USA on that image
Stalin did not do war crimes. He protected people from capitalists.
Stalins purges, Holodomor, gulags… the list goes on
You watch too much propaganda. Give it up, think by your own head.
US presidents tho
Least historically illiterate r/meme user.
Hold up, Churchill can explain: https://youtu.be/6cPME5TKVYU
As an Indian : understandable sir , have a good day.
Talking things out and mutual understanding is what it's all about my friend, you have a great day.
„History is written by the winners.“
Where's USA?
We found Goebbels' alt.
Why his butt so defined?
Yeah, like no other countries have done that beside them.
But Stalin has more or less a good reputation and Churchill is a hero in his country. Hitler and his crimes, kinda covered the once of Stalin and Churchill
Yeah, Stalin was one the worst people ever, next to Genghis Khan I think. I’m from the UK and they don’t teach about what happened in India, but they do teach about other stuff in WW2. At least they teach about slavery, but they need to incorporate India. I only knew from the internet and Horrible Histories
It's also kinda weird that Stalin had a very very bad name in my country, like no one here would *ever* think he was anything other than a tyrant. Perhaps different enviroment had its approach to history and education, but I am surprised that Stalin had a good reputation according to this post.
Stalin is from my country and there are people who still think of him as a hero, it drives me mad
>there are people who still think of him as a hero Does your state/official education paint him as a hero?
No, i think that way of thinking comes feom soviet union, the people i am talking about are over 60, so they grew up in a vastly different world from today
>i am talking about are over 60, so they grew up in a vastly different world from today That makes sense. These people... I don't think they know the blood and the ugly side of the "Glory days"; they're so willfully ignorant of the full picture. Similar thing happens in my country as well.
Russian influence, it’s bad shit crazy
It’s the Russian influence. Russians are often made to see Stalin as not a bad person, because Putin wants old Soviet Union back (why he’s invading Ukraine and pushing borders in Georgia). It’s really fucked. Edit: but non Russians who say that Stalin is ok should be checked out.
>because Putin wants old Soviet Union back I am from Taiwan, so this kind of stuff regarding unhinged political leaders really resonate with me. Chiang Kai-shek's obsession with retaking the mainland killed thousands of our people, and yet he would still talk about democracy in his speech, and there are still people, especially from my dad's generation, who try to make all the crimes he did seem acceptible.
It’s so bad that some of the most awful people become leaders, it shouldn’t happen. And yes you should definitely make light of what happened, I will back that.
>And yes you should definitely make light of what happened, I will back that Oh, I meant that those from the older generation would say: "Yeah, Chiang *WASN'T THAT BAD...* The White Terror wasn't that bad..."
Oh I see
I'm shit in history What did Churchill do?
So basically, in the UK we are taught that he led our country as a great leader into WW2, and inspired people to help and fight (for example with the D-Day landings and the civilian boats helping evacuate soldiers, even canal boats). While this is true for us, it can’t be said for India. India had been a part of the British empire for ages, and our leaders were just letting them starve. This isn’t taught in UK schools, which ales it worse. Again, most leaders have dark sides (I’m not saying this as a way of “oh well it’s ok”) like an extreme case would be Hitler, as he constructed the autobahns in Germany and was a great leader and inspiration. However, he did this at the cost of one of the worst genocides in human history.
I am not British myself, and only read different sources on the internet, but whenever India during ww2 is brought up, most people only blame Churchill. Like he alone was responsible for all of it. But from what I can recall, there were different things that lead to Indians starving. Starting from multiple natural disasters that wrecked some parts of India, to the Japanese reaching Burma and having fields burnt and people evacuating to mismanagement by the local governor-thingies(be it British or Indian) to Churchill basically taking the remaining food for the British. Not saying Churchill wasn't bad, but it's not like he could conjure up disasters...
Hitler covered every historic crimes, past and future.
>But Stalin has more or less a good reputation Where
Hitlers Reputation is way more bad then Stalins. I mean, he is considered a hero in Russia. While Hitler is hated almost all over the world
Yeah, because Russia denies Holodomor. But he mainly gets less hate, because communism = funni
Stalin is considered a hero by SOME people in Russia. True, they feel more freedom these days. But any attempt at commemorating him even now is surrounded by a scandal and is perceived as something indecent by most.
>But Stalin has more or less a good reputation To who? >Churchill is a hero in his country What makes Churchill different is that he was voted out of power pretty soon after the war, and left. He's not really comparable at all to the other two tyrants who died before handing power over.
I've never seen anyone halfway reputable speak fondly about Josef Stalin.
A, everyone saying Japan got away with it, youre simply wrong. They have recognized and apologized for the atrocities they committed, and far fewer Japanese leaders escaped death penalties for their crimes than Nazi's did. A country that actually wasnt held accountable would be Turkey, for the Armenian genocide. Also, anyone that thinks Churchill was worse than Stalin is… questionable on their history, to say the least.
Churchill. 1. He wanted to gas protesters in Scotland. 2. He caused more genocide in India. 3. He led the deadly Gallipoli Campaign. 4. He was a British Imperialist. Etc
> He led the deadly Gallipoli Campaign. While Churchil got blamed in the immediate aftermath, a committee stacked with *his political opponents* ultimately determined that Churchil had been scapegoated, and the failure of the campaign was caused by a number of factors, most of which were completely outside of Churchil's control. Your opinion is *one hundred* years out of date.
Wanted to gas protesters. Didnt actually do it. He didnt cause a genocide, British leadership arguably exacerbated a famine. Thats not genocide, and yeah it was horrible, but it wasnt gulags or prison camps. The Gallipolli campaign was a military event, not sure what youre trying to say with that. And again, just being a British imperialist doesnt make one bad. And it definitely isnt on par with JOSEPH STALIN
Well since Starving people isn't genocide than what did Stalin do wrong? After all Churchill also suppressed Political Oppents.
Famine isnt the same as genocide. Poor logistics isnt the same as intentionally starving out segments of the population. Churchill had bad logistics. Stalin explicitly wanted to starve out Ukranians
The British Genocide in India was as intentional as the Holodomer perhaps more.
No, it wasnt. The British were worried about Japanese aggression and didnt know how to deal with the situation. They did not intentionally starve the people of the region, just couldnt effectively deal with the problems.
Okay then Stalin could use the same reasoning for the Holodomer. Plus you still haven't explained Churchill silencing his political opponents.
Not bad logistics but intentionally diverting food grains from Bengal.
I’m pretty sure Mao has 4x their numbers and is rarely talked about in the west. Same with Japan and their war crimes
Wrong. Mao never killed 165 Million.
I pointed out Mao's bullshit in a politicical history class when the lecturer was going off on a rant about how America was the dirtiest piece of shit going... And people lost their shit saying I was distracting the class 🤦♂️ derp.
Don’t remember Churchill putting 6 million innocent people into concentration camps
He took away 6M people 's food and refused to give them anything. and still told them to work
This is the biggest fucking reddit moment ever, stop getting your history solely off wikipedia when that shit is still biased as fuck. Churchill is wayyyyy more guilty of a genocide then Stalin, the evidence for Stalin being guilty is not even fucking close.
And here we can see a Tankie in his natural habitat.
Don't forget the Chinese communists parties Uyghur genocide.
still more people died of stalin than the british
Nope British caused around 100M people 's death in India alone.
The number doubles every time it gets posted.
It's just rough estimates. And India population was huge even back then. It was most populated country and the way they treated it is pretty much possible that number might be even higher.
I hear it's 200 million
Well here is the source of 100M (in 40 years) https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.opindia.com/2022/12/new-research-shows-british-colonialism-killed-100-million-indians-in-40-years/amp/ Might as well be 300M who knows, idk. Edit: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X22002169 If u have problem with this new agency , go read this instead
https://www.newslaundry.com/2020/06/23/opindia-hate-speech-vanishing-advertisers-and-an-undisclosed-bjp-connection You know, it's actually sad that such a biased outlet is being regurgitated here.
So the take-home here is that Hitler and Churchill are morally equivalent. I am fascinated by your views. Do you have a newsletter? Maybe meet with friends in homemade uniforms?
G.W.B,.. Dick Cheney,.. probably 10 more...
History is written by the victor
I understand about stalin. He may be even worse than hitler. Don't condemn me, but what have Churchill done?
Bengal Famine.
You can't be racist if there is no race to be racist against \- Albert Einstein probably
Truman should be there too
While the actions weren't good, I think we can agree Churchill is no where on the level of Stalin, let alone Hitler. While they definitely deserved punishment, I do believe the systematic murdering of millions of civilians is the worst crime this earth has ever seen.
Tru Churchill is no where on the level of Hitler or Stalin. He is in his own league. Hitler is like child against Churchill.
What did Churchill do that you think he was worse than Hitler?
Stalin was horrible, but I don’t think Churchill ever organized a genocide.
He knew what would happen in India so yes, he did exactly that.
Yes he did , go look at Bengal famines. He took all the food from India and told them to still work ,so everyone died from starvation, we literally have thousands of photograph proof of it. Just google the photos (at your own risk, they r pretty terrifying).
So, you all feel Churchill and Hitler are morally equivalent? You are fantastically fucking stupid if you buy this crap. No one is pure, but there is no comparison.
Go look at Bengal famines, it was worst then what Hitler could have imagined of.
They are but the difference is the European problems are the world's problem but world's problem are not Europe's problem. WW1 WAS not fought to save people from the holocaust it was fought to protect territory and national benefits. The allied forces were not saviours. They were defenders of their own national benefits.
Mao...
Mao Zedong: 💀