Robert Evans has said several times in recent episodes of BtB that the mentality of “good at war means good at killing” is demonstrably false. The US and USSR won WWII not by being better killers but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.) The US has arguably lost all its conflicts since then because they fell in love with the idea that you can bomb or brutalize your way to victory.
It depends on the objective of the war. Nation building is basically impossible. Killing the crap out of an enemy until they surrender is pretty effective historically. Killing the crap out of select targets while avoiding excessive civilian casualties is generally ineffective. WWII was a total war scenario, the US and USSR absolutely killed entire areas of German and Japanese towns.
but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.)
It wasn't just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy's. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on "warrior spirit" or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it's simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
USSR being less awful than the Nazis is uhh arguable, if you look at the Eastern Europe. They had more people to throw into the grinder, that much is true.
The invasion that started WW2 in Europe was conducted by the Germans in Poland.... and by the Soviets in Poland! They also invaded and occupied Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They invaded Finland. The list of countries invaded by the Soviet Union is long and shameful. Not a good look for an anti-imperialist ideology, IMHO.
Uh, they were directly responsible for the start of WWII when they jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis. They were one of the principal causes of the war before Hitler turned on them. They get absolutely zero fucking pass for WWII and only survived at all because the US provided them the logistics and equipment under Lend-Lease to hold off the Nazis on the Eastern Front long enough for the rest of the allies to take the Western Front.
The Holodomor in Ukraine.
Like 7 wars in Afghanistan between 1925 and 1990 including the Soviet-Afghan War.
Several wars with China over territory like Georgia.
Two decades of guerilla wars suppressing rebellion and uprisings within captured territories.
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
To be fair, they had to defend their homeland from a ground invasion. In winter. While Leningrad was being sieged and blockaded. Many Soviet soldiers starved because of that.
They did not have Christmas parties with the Nazis unlike the Allies. Wonder why.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Also the Soviets literally invaded Poland opposite of Germany in '39.
Back to my question about actual battlefield behavior, though: did the Soviet commanders shoot their own troops and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
Yes, as did every other country during the war. Some more than others, but there wasn't a single country in WWII where officers did not shoot their own soldiers for insubordination.
and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
No, this is common propaganda pushed by COD and Enemy at the Gates, based on a single officer's report from the Battle of Stalingrad that they did not have enough guns to equip his troops. Conveniently, the second half of the officers report is usually left out, where he states that he is diverting his troop ship to a supply depot to rearm before heading into combat.
I see you know nothing about history except spouting propaganda so no need to discuss further. You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
After that NATO integrated many top Nazi leaders directly into leadership roles and put a Nazi official at the top of NATO not long after WW2 was over.
The post you're replying doesn't claim the Allies killed more, less or whatever than the USSR. It's about the importance of holding territory vs. killing. Did you just jump into this because you wanted to point out the outsized effort the USSR made in defeating the Nazis?
And that only happened because the US provided basically everything to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.
Without American equipment, the Soviets were getting absolutely slaughtered.
Their infrastructure was collapsed, they were out of equipment and couldn’t produce more. The US provided tanks, guns, bullets, clothes, food, and even railway to them to keep them afloat and hold off the Nazis while they fought the Western Front.
Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets stood exactly zero chance.
"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."
Well, because that’s not what the warrior ethos is to begin with.
The ones seeking out an unnecessary fight are not following the warrior ethos as taught to the military. At least the Marines when it was required reading for me.
The warrior ethos is about being willing to rise to the fight when it’s necessary, putting the others around you above yourself, and not backing down from the fight even in the face of death. Honor is the cornerstone of the warrior ethos, and being the aggressor in an unnecessary fight is not honorable.
That’s exactly what all those school teachers, store clerks, and other everyday men in WWII did. The fight was necessary, they recognized that and stood up when called, left behind their homes and families to meet the fight head on, faced extreme circumstances and certain death and refused to back down.
THAT is the warrior ethos. Not some blood lust.
It’s a shame that those with a blood lust have coopted it.
Rambo 3: probably split because it's about killing Russians, but also aiding tErRoRiStS and watching it in modern times completely misses the point that this is kiiinda what lead to bin Laden
The people who become military when it is not wartime are psychos, believers and the desperate. The vast majority of people who are best at making war seem to choose to do other things with their time when it isn't wartime.
I specifically said “with troops deployed abroad,” giving everyone who has reacted here (A) the option to read that far and (B) the chance consider why that qualifier might be significant, knowing the knee jerk was likely but that it would demonstrate how used to the idea of a warrior class and risk-free acceptance of American imperialism we truly are.
::: spoiler If you are an American reading this, please ask yourself…
Is it OK that the risks endured in military service are only optional for the well-off and those who have other options, yet an “opportunity” for social mobility (a way out of poverty) to the least privileged?
Is it just that people overseas should fear American boots on their soil while you feel none and feel entitled to balk at the “shitty idea” of you or those you care about being selected to fill those boots?
Can you wash your hands of responsibility for American actions abroad simply by claiming pacifism or conscientious objection?
:::
US imperialism can only continue as long as all those who would object to violence can simply choose economic participation instead, enjoying the spoils at a safe distance while imagining their hands clean.
::: spoiler —— end of edit, original comment below ——
It’s part of why I think random conscription should be kept as the primary if not only means of military enlistment for any country with troops deployed abroad.
But the other part is why I think this policy should be constitutional and considered utterly sacred…
If combat is required, that is far too important a job to be left to the combative.
This might seem like a cruel policy but that’s because war is the cruel policy, even if it becomes necessary. Citizens should not be as emotionally sheltered from that truth as they are.
This is the moral argument for conscription or mandatory service in many nations, that it’s a deterrent to war when civilian voters are not free to compartmentalize it.
:::
Random conscription is a terrible idea for a non-wartime army.
I always loved the idea of mandatory service. Everyone has to serve two years to get full "citizenship status", (what that means is definitely debatable).
But not necessarily military service. Your two years could be spent in a number of ways supporting the public good. Like the CCC from Roosevelt, or supporting firefighting, assisting with elderly care, all kinds of things could benefit.
Afghans have had people fucking their shit up for like 4 generations now .. they don't really know anything else, pretty sure they were relatively normal prior to the US and USSR fuckery.
I mean, you could say the same thing about Europe .. but the current state of things in Afghanistan is definitely a result of the last 50 odd years of global super powers meddling.
No, no, you don't understand. Afghanistan has been the place where external empires compete with each other for much longer than that. Nobody ever really succeeds there.
CIA funded islamists but did not create them. They gained broad popular support after Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when initial Afghani communist government imploded and USSR took control and installed their own puppet.
Considering how poorly US soldiers perform compared to the other nations—just look how consistently they lose war games too—they really should drop the act. The US military is a tech military and the warriors are just users looking for work and benefits in a difficult society.
The us military ran a massive wargame in 2002, and blue team got curbstomped by a red teamer who designed his strategy around what Iran would be able to do: shutting down shipping, avoiding sigint (using messengers on motorcycles to carry orders, for example), having a highly distributed and resilient command structure, using small speedboats to sneak in and damage American vessels who got too close.
The military said "boo not fair you're supposed to let us blow you all up".
It's also a problem with wargames in general. Since no one is dieing and there's no real stakes, it's more of a way for officers to show off their plans. If someone wins, but does it by deviating from the plan it makes the officers look bad. When there's actual lives on the line, winning starts looking better than how you won.
I don't think that does the Red Army justice. It was a brutal, ideologically driven force that absorbed horrific losses and kept fighting. It wasn't a "warrior cult" in the Japanese or Nazi sense, but it wasn't a bunch of civilians who'd "rather be doing anything else," either.
ehh, i guess saying "tumblr user" multiple times is repetitive, unless they added federation while i wasn't looking, i guess you could just say "tumblr screenshot"
95 Comments
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 88 pts · 33d
Robert Evans has said several times in recent episodes of BtB that the mentality of “good at war means good at killing” is demonstrably false. The US and USSR won WWII not by being better killers but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.) The US has arguably lost all its conflicts since then because they fell in love with the idea that you can bomb or brutalize your way to victory.
ryathal@sh.itjust.works · 11 pts · 33d
It depends on the objective of the war. Nation building is basically impossible. Killing the crap out of an enemy until they surrender is pretty effective historically. Killing the crap out of select targets while avoiding excessive civilian casualties is generally ineffective. WWII was a total war scenario, the US and USSR absolutely killed entire areas of German and Japanese towns.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 8 pts · 33d
It wasn't just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy's. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on "warrior spirit" or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it's simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 4 pts · 33d
USSR being less awful than the Nazis is uhh arguable, if you look at the Eastern Europe. They had more people to throw into the grinder, that much is true.
Honytawk@discuss.tchncs.de · 4 pts · 33d
How many world wars did the USSR start compared to how long they existed?
The Nazis caused more war and in less time. And would have cause even more if they existed as long as the USSR did.
Doesn't mean the USSR wasn't awful. It just didn't commit genocide like a conveyor belt.
rockerface@lemmy.cafe · 7 pts · 33d
It did, though. This isn't a competition. Both Soviets and Nazis were committing genocide. Sometimes they even collaborated on it.
NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 32d
The invasion that started WW2 in Europe was conducted by the Germans in Poland.... and by the Soviets in Poland! They also invaded and occupied Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. They invaded Finland. The list of countries invaded by the Soviet Union is long and shameful. Not a good look for an anti-imperialist ideology, IMHO.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 32d
Uh, they were directly responsible for the start of WWII when they jointly invaded Poland with the Nazis. They were one of the principal causes of the war before Hitler turned on them. They get absolutely zero fucking pass for WWII and only survived at all because the US provided them the logistics and equipment under Lend-Lease to hold off the Nazis on the Eastern Front long enough for the rest of the allies to take the Western Front.
The Holodomor in Ukraine.
Like 7 wars in Afghanistan between 1925 and 1990 including the Soviet-Afghan War.
Several wars with China over territory like Georgia.
Two decades of guerilla wars suppressing rebellion and uprisings within captured territories.
The invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968.
Objection@lemmy.ml · 0 pts · 33d
You've got fascism in your anti-communism again.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · -7 pts · 33d
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 2 pts · 32d
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 32d
To be fair, they had to defend their homeland from a ground invasion. In winter. While Leningrad was being sieged and blockaded. Many Soviet soldiers starved because of that.
All while being present on other fronts.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 32d
Yes. Because Soviets fought instead of surrendering.
forkDestroyer@infosec.pub · 1 pts · 32d
Did they have good leadership? I hear stories about how soldiers had to fight without enough guns or ammo, or they'd be shot by their commanders.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
They did not have Christmas parties with the Nazis unlike the Allies. Wonder why.
forkDestroyer@infosec.pub · 2 pts · 32d
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Also the Soviets literally invaded Poland opposite of Germany in '39.
Back to my question about actual battlefield behavior, though: did the Soviet commanders shoot their own troops and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
impairedimperator@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 32d
Yes, as did every other country during the war. Some more than others, but there wasn't a single country in WWII where officers did not shoot their own soldiers for insubordination.
No, this is common propaganda pushed by COD and Enemy at the Gates, based on a single officer's report from the Battle of Stalingrad that they did not have enough guns to equip his troops. Conveniently, the second half of the officers report is usually left out, where he states that he is diverting his troop ship to a supply depot to rearm before heading into combat.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
I see you know nothing about history except spouting propaganda so no need to discuss further. You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 32d
Wasn't that WW1
Geobloke@aussie.zone · 1 pts · 31d
So did the British? What's your point?
quarkquasar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
Mostly, yes, the West was only busy trying to steal German oil colonies in Africa instead of actually fighting the Nazis.
Not to liberate the people of course but to colonize the land themselves and steal the oil for themselves.
America only swooped in after the Nazis had already been defeated at Stalingrad, and the Soviets were at the point of taking over all of Europe.
quarkquasar@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
After that NATO integrated many top Nazi leaders directly into leadership roles and put a Nazi official at the top of NATO not long after WW2 was over.
quarkquasar@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 32d
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
No to subjegate their colonies and steal their oil. And now deliver weapons to Israel so it can commit genocide.
axx@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 32d
The post you're replying doesn't claim the Allies killed more, less or whatever than the USSR. It's about the importance of holding territory vs. killing. Did you just jump into this because you wanted to point out the outsized effort the USSR made in defeating the Nazis?
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
What territory? The Allies were only able to swoop in and capture the West of Europe because the Nazis threw everything at the Soviets and lost.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 32d
And that only happened because the US provided basically everything to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.
Without American equipment, the Soviets were getting absolutely slaughtered.
Their infrastructure was collapsed, they were out of equipment and couldn’t produce more. The US provided tanks, guns, bullets, clothes, food, and even railway to them to keep them afloat and hold off the Nazis while they fought the Western Front.
Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets stood exactly zero chance.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 31d
Lend Lease supplied 10% of the Soviets supplies tops. This is such gigantic hypercope.
Nobody says it did not help, but you are exaggerating the role of the US into infinity.
Exactly like how the US propaganda tried to rewrite history after the fact.
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 31d
Stalin and Kruschev both openly stated that without the US lend lease, the Soviets would have lost.
That’s not cope. That’s the Soviets themselves.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 31d
To pretend like Lend Lease was the entire war is massive cope. 10% is a lot but nowhere close to 100%.
axx@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 32d
I mean, just reread the comment.
prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 1 pts · 32d
The allies killed a whole bunch in Tokyo and Dresden, et al., but those are mostly citizens so... 😬
Tetragrade@leminal.space · 0 pts · 32d
Look everyone, it's one of the guys from the meme.
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 75 pts · 33d
"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."
tetris11@feddit.uk · 12 pts · 33d
God bless the military-industrial complex 🫡
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 1 pts · 32d
Nice quote. Is it from you?
brown567@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 32d
Nope! It's Sir William Francis Butler. It's often misattributed to Thucydides, and usually misquoted
LePoisson@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 32d
Based on my cursory search, It's from a British officer sir William Butler
FreddiesLantern@leminal.space · 40 pts · 33d
When are we going to recognise that the whole "warrior ethos" bs is just an excuse for when assholes desperately want to cosplay as Rambo?
Earthwormjim91@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 32d
Well, because that’s not what the warrior ethos is to begin with.
The ones seeking out an unnecessary fight are not following the warrior ethos as taught to the military. At least the Marines when it was required reading for me.
The warrior ethos is about being willing to rise to the fight when it’s necessary, putting the others around you above yourself, and not backing down from the fight even in the face of death. Honor is the cornerstone of the warrior ethos, and being the aggressor in an unnecessary fight is not honorable.
That’s exactly what all those school teachers, store clerks, and other everyday men in WWII did. The fight was necessary, they recognized that and stood up when called, left behind their homes and families to meet the fight head on, faced extreme circumstances and certain death and refused to back down.
THAT is the warrior ethos. Not some blood lust.
It’s a shame that those with a blood lust have coopted it.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world · 37 pts · 33d
Conservatives love Rambo II and hate Rambo I
Tonuka@feddit.org · 18 pts · 33d
Conservatives made sequels to Jarhead
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz · 5 pts · 33d
WTF?
Tonuka@feddit.org · 5 pts · 33d
sorry if this is how you found out an anti-war movie had several pro-war sequels lol
tacosanonymous@mander.xyz · 2 pts · 32d
It is. That does seem on brand for movie execs though. Glad I went this long without knowing about them.
GraniteM@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 33d
First Blood: War is horrible. War destroys people's minds, bodies, and souls. War spawns never-ending cycles of trauma and violence. Don't do war.
Every Subsequent Rambo Movie: FUCK YEAH, WAR, ARROOOO!!! 💥💥🧨🧨💪🏻💪🏻
See also: Rocky
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
Rambo 3: probably split because it's about killing Russians, but also aiding tErRoRiStS and watching it in modern times completely misses the point that this is kiiinda what lead to bin Laden
axx@slrpnk.net · 1 pts · 32d
I recall Rambo (2008) leaving me with a strong sense that war and fighting was horrible, by design (not only because i am a big softie).
mrmisses@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
I recently watched both for the first time and they were horrible. But why would they like the hippie homeless vet killing cops story in rambo 2?
Edit: I was thinking of rambo 1. Rambo 2 he rescues hostages he was supposed to ignore. I forget the rest I think I was too hugh
ricecake@sh.itjust.works · 35 pts · 33d
What does the warrior have that the pencil pusher doesn't? Spirit.
What does the pencil pusher have that the warrior doesn't? Food and ammunition.
Tango@piefed.ca · 15 pts · 33d
And, therefore, spirit.
tetris11@feddit.uk · 6 pts · 33d
What does the constipated mathematician do to solve their problems?
They work it out with a pencil.
NotEasyBeingGreen@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 32d
I feel like this post deserves a NSFW spolier thingy. 🙈😅
Notyou@sopuli.xyz · 26 pts · 33d
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 25 pts · 33d
The people who become military when it is not wartime are psychos, believers and the desperate. The vast majority of people who are best at making war seem to choose to do other things with their time when it isn't wartime.
Septimaeus@infosec.pub · 5 pts · 33d
E: And the results are in.
I specifically said “with troops deployed abroad,” giving everyone who has reacted here (A) the option to read that far and (B) the chance consider why that qualifier might be significant, knowing the knee jerk was likely but that it would demonstrate how used to the idea of a warrior class and risk-free acceptance of American imperialism we truly are.
::: spoiler If you are an American reading this, please ask yourself…
US imperialism can only continue as long as all those who would object to violence can simply choose economic participation instead, enjoying the spoils at a safe distance while imagining their hands clean.
::: spoiler —— end of edit, original comment below ——
It’s part of why I think random conscription should be kept as the primary if not only means of military enlistment for any country with troops deployed abroad.
But the other part is why I think this policy should be constitutional and considered utterly sacred…
If combat is required, that is far too important a job to be left to the combative.
This might seem like a cruel policy but that’s because war is the cruel policy, even if it becomes necessary. Citizens should not be as emotionally sheltered from that truth as they are.
This is the moral argument for conscription or mandatory service in many nations, that it’s a deterrent to war when civilian voters are not free to compartmentalize it. :::
sartalon@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 33d
Random conscription is a terrible idea for a non-wartime army.
I always loved the idea of mandatory service. Everyone has to serve two years to get full "citizenship status", (what that means is definitely debatable).
But not necessarily military service. Your two years could be spent in a number of ways supporting the public good. Like the CCC from Roosevelt, or supporting firefighting, assisting with elderly care, all kinds of things could benefit.
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 33d
Everyone or just men?
MrKoyun@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
This is an important and real question.
sartalon@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
In my fantasy, it doesn't matter. It should be irrelevant. (Gender, race, identity, etc...)
Wataba@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 33d
Starship Troopers exemplifies just how fucking shitty that idea is
Tango@piefed.ca · 2 pts · 33d
Go on
Thebeardedsinglemalt@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 33d
Would you like to know more?
axx@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 32d
Starship Troopers has a part about non-wartime?
Objection@lemmy.ml · 3 pts · 33d
When was the last time the US wasn't in wartime though?
minorkeys@sh.itjust.works · 6 pts · 32d
Wars of conquest or empire aren't what I'm referring to, to be clear.
jedibob5@lemmy.world · 21 pts · 33d
Turns out wars are won by the people who would really rather not be at war
cabillaud@lemmy.world · -2 pts · 33d
Mmh..Afghans see war as a social event and that seems to work for them.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone · 17 pts · 33d
Afghans have had people fucking their shit up for like 4 generations now .. they don't really know anything else, pretty sure they were relatively normal prior to the US and USSR fuckery.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 33d
It's been a battle ground as long as empires have existed
Lodespawn@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 33d
I mean, you could say the same thing about Europe .. but the current state of things in Afghanistan is definitely a result of the last 50 odd years of global super powers meddling.
Tango@piefed.ca · 8 pts · 33d
No, no, you don't understand. Afghanistan has been the place where external empires compete with each other for much longer than that. Nobody ever really succeeds there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Game
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 0 pts · 33d
Me too. You can add the islamist fuckery to your list.
Lodespawn@aussie.zone · 10 pts · 33d
Wasn't the islamist fuckery a result of CIA fuckery attempting to quash a moderate socialist government?
deadcream@sopuli.xyz · 3 pts · 33d
CIA funded islamists but did not create them. They gained broad popular support after Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when initial Afghani communist government imploded and USSR took control and installed their own puppet.
cabillaud@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
This is right. It's impossible to say how much harm this organization has done to people over the world.
hanrahan@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 32d
Indonesia was a bloodbath helped along by the CIA and the British
what a fucking mess
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_mass_killings_of_1965%E2%80%9366?wprov=sfla1
saltesc@lemmy.world · 14 pts · 33d
Considering how poorly US soldiers perform compared to the other nations—just look how consistently they lose war games too—they really should drop the act. The US military is a tech military and the warriors are just users looking for work and benefits in a difficult society.
eestileib@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 33d
This is also a leadership problem.
The us military ran a massive wargame in 2002, and blue team got curbstomped by a red teamer who designed his strategy around what Iran would be able to do: shutting down shipping, avoiding sigint (using messengers on motorcycles to carry orders, for example), having a highly distributed and resilient command structure, using small speedboats to sneak in and damage American vessels who got too close.
The military said "boo not fair you're supposed to let us blow you all up".
Remarkably predictive all in all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
ryathal@sh.itjust.works · 4 pts · 33d
It's also a problem with wargames in general. Since no one is dieing and there's no real stakes, it's more of a way for officers to show off their plans. If someone wins, but does it by deviating from the plan it makes the officers look bad. When there's actual lives on the line, winning starts looking better than how you won.
Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 33d
Cultivate a forklift operator ethos
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 33d
Are you suggesting we require certification to join the military?
almost_genocide@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 33d
The red army is a similar story. They were mostly farmers who were tired of farming for rich people.
e_chao@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 33d
I don't think that does the Red Army justice. It was a brutal, ideologically driven force that absorbed horrific losses and kept fighting. It wasn't a "warrior cult" in the Japanese or Nazi sense, but it wasn't a bunch of civilians who'd "rather be doing anything else," either.
AVincentInSpace@pawb.social · 1 pts · 18d
An important thing for myself (and a disturbing number of lefty Fedizens) to remember.
Iron_Lynx@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 29d
Battles are won by fighters. Wars are won by logistics clerks.
snowcrete@lemmy.wtf · 1 pts · 33d
I love how this was grabbed from Tumblr.
Transform2942@lemmy.ml · 4 pts · 33d
a common mistake but you see this is literally the
/c/tumblrcommTonuka@feddit.org · 2 pts · 33d
Haha what do you mean? The way I screenshot it or?
rain_worl@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 26d
alt text!!! yippee!!!
Tonuka@feddit.org · 2 pts · 26d
Someone noticed! You're welcome, could I improve anything?
rain_worl@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 25d
ehh, i guess saying "tumblr user" multiple times is repetitive, unless they added federation while i wasn't looking, i guess you could just say "tumblr screenshot"
Tonuka@feddit.org · 2 pts · 25d
Nice, had the same thought and was gonna stop doing that