• dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
    86·
    9 days ago

    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
      17·
      9 days ago

      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.

    • rockerface🇺🇦@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      13·
      9 days ago

      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.deEnglish
        5·
        9 days ago

        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.cafeEnglish
          8·
          9 days ago

          didn’t commit genocide like a conveyor belt

          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·
          8 days ago

          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.worldEnglish
          3·
          8 days ago

          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
      10·
      9 days ago

      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.

  • brown567@sh.itjust.works
    73·
    9 days ago

    “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.”

  • FreddiesLantern@leminal.space
    39·
    9 days ago

    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.worldEnglish
      4·
      8 days ago

      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.

    • GraniteM@lemmy.world
      6·
      9 days ago

      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·
        9 days ago

        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·
        8 days ago

        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
      5·
      9 days ago

      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
    34·
    9 days ago

    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.

  • minorkeys@sh.itjust.works
    26·
    9 days ago

    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
      8·
      9 days ago

      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.

      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.

      —— 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.

    • e_chao@lemmy.world
      3·
      8 days ago

      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.