Comment on asked and answered
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 1 day agoI mean, that’s what both the Japanese and the Nazi were hoping for. That the rest of the world would settle for peace and allow them to keep their spoils.
Oh, ok. That must be why the Japanese attacked the US, right? Because they were hoping for peace.
There’s a difference between standing up to literal fascist invading allies, and Bush’s “war on terror”,
Saddam Hussein was just as racist, nationalist, authoritarian, expansionist, and cruel as Benito Mussolini. So what exactly is the difference?
trying to conflate the two is pathetic.
Fuck you
when has appeasing fascist with political discourse ever worked?
You sound like a republican, circa 2003
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Literally yes. The Japanese were trying to wipe the entire Pacific fleet out with one punch, making it too costly for the Americans to enter the war. They were hoping that America would cut their losses and settle for a negotiated peace that allowed the Japanese to keep their Pacific holdings.
The devil is in the details… Fascism may have some overlaps with the Baathis party, mostly with their authoritarianism. But it’s pretty distinct from it considering Baathism revolves around pan Arabic unity and socialism.
Lol, and you sound like Neville Chamberlain circa 1930’s.
the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
…so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.
You could say that. It would be more accurate to say the venn diagram of the overlap is a circle. It’s weird that you oppose fighting one and not the other. What is the difference you’re concerned with? Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?
More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country? Fascist ideologies all revolve around pan (insert race/nationality here) unity. So, again, what’s the difference?
Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.
Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.
TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
Lol, they invaded the Philippines the same day they bombed pearl harbor… Like I said, they wanted to take the US out in one fatal blow and make it to where the US didn’t have the ability or the motivation for a pacific campaign.
This isn’t even up for debate, it’s well documented history. "Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto recognized Japan’s industrial inferiority to the U.S. and knew that a prolonged conflict would lead to defeat. The surprise attack was intended to deliver such a heavy blow that the U.S. would sue for peace, avoiding a war they couldn’t win. "
Idk…maybe it’s the fact that the modern political history of the Middle East and 1930s Europe are different? Maybe it’s that I disagree with how the second gulf war was conducted and justified. Maybe our history of supporting and arming both Iraq and Iran may add some nuance to the scenarios?
Fascism does not just mean authoritarianism.
The majority of Iraq is Shia… He is Sunni and elevated the Sunni minority, however his attacks against Kurds were because Kurds, like Persians are not Arabic. Again, the history of the middle East is complicated and conflict can be raised from anything from tribalism, nationalism, ethnic conflict, economics, or secretarial violence.
It’s like you are allergic to nuance…
The Nazi party was not socialist, the only reason it has socialism in the name is because socialism was so popular in Germany in the 20s and 30s that you couldn’t get on the ballot without giving it the nod. The Nazi government only nationalized resources and existing businesses so they could then privatize it to someone with in the party as a favour.
The baathis party had a state planned economy. According to Phebe Marr, Saddam “provided widespread health, education, and social benefits that went well beyond those of any previous regime”.[4] Saddam implemented land reform, made hospitals and education free, doubled the number of students in schools and developed infrastructure such as roads, access to electricity and water, in addition to increasing life expectancy and decreasing child mortality.[4]
While he was literally crazy, and an authoritarian, he was still a socialist.
Lol, this is the most ahistorical take on Chamberlain ever… It ignores his attitude towards appeasement that he held since the beginning of his tenure. “Chamberlain sought to conciliate Germany and make the Nazi state a partner in a stable Europe.[85] He believed Germany could be satisfied by the restoration of some of its colonies, and during the Rhineland crisis of March 1936 he had stated that “if we were in sight of an all-round settlement the British government ought to consider the question” of restoration of colonies.[86]”
Also, how exactly would Germany be “blitzkrieg” Britain while invading the rest of Europe?
All of your takes are historically inaccurate and based solely on generalizing to the point of indistinction.