Comment on asked and answered

• TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  …so they could capture the Philippines unimpeded. That is not “hoping for peace”. That is hoping for an easier war.

  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. "

  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?

  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?

  Do you just not like the word “fascism”, and are ok with governments that are fascist in all but name?

  Fascism does not just mean authoritarianism.

  More like pan Sunni supremacy. Are you forgetting he gassed an entire region trying to genocide an ethnic minority in his own country?

  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.

  Hussein was about as socialist as the National Socialists I guess.

  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.

  Chamberlain gave the UK time to arm so they didn’t get blitzkrieged into extinction.

  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.

  source