Even the first one is highly debatable.
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
261 points (97.5% liked)
Flippanarchy
1704 readers
3 users here now
Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.
Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.
This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.
Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com
Rules
-
If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text
-
If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.
-
Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.
-
Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.
-
No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.
-
This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.
-
No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.
Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Took on the Nazis after accrueing 75% of the world's gold reserves selling weapons to allies and watching from afar. The advantage of not facing direct infrastructure loss and having scientists flocking to the US for safety also allowed for the development of the nuclear bomb.
Took on the Nazis
Didn't more Americans fight in the Pacific Theater? Weird how all these hagiographies don't start with "Killed 3M Japanese, mostly civilians".
killed 3m Japanese
The Japanese regime was up to worse shit than the German one, rhey just weren't doing it to white people.
mostly to civilians
So there was this city called Dresden...
I'm not necessarily defending anyone here; all three suck, but it feels like weird revisionism.
The Japanese regime was up to worse shit than the German one
The firebombing of Tokyo was as nightmarish a war crime as the London Blitz.
I’m not necessarily defending anyone here; all three suck, but it feels like weird revisionism
History is written by the victors. So there's always a justification for atrocity in the bylines when it comes time to explain your own campaigns of horror.
In another fifty years, I suspect the subject of the Gaza Genocide will be treated with the same backhanded accounting as the genocides in Kenya and Armenia, the Red Scares in America, and the White Terror in Taiwan.
Remember that Japanese PM who got got wiyh a diy shotgun? Lookup his grandpa.
Or "unit 731" and the guy who ran it.
The modern relationship between Korea and Japan is deeply fucked, especially given the historical context.
But during the US Occupation of Japan I'm 1946 and 1947, U.S. authorities offered Unit 731's leader, Shirō Ishii, and other perpetrators immunity from prosecution for war crimes in exchange for the biological weapons data collected from their experiments.
The people we slaughtered were civilians and the ones we spared were the worst war criminals.
Well yes. The wrong thing got done. Kind if reliably.
Who was worse Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?
But killing civilians wasn’t taboo at the time and we can whataboutism Japan’s treatment of civilians.
As for your question, yes the US was inconsequential in the allies beating Germany (though it can argued they allowed the western Allies to meet the USSR in Germany) and was mostly in the Pacific theatre.
This is absolutely wrong, but the fascists violated the rules deliberately and repeatedly and created the modern concept of total war as an ideological demand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
The Geneva Conventions were established prior to the war. The versions we have now were updated post-war to reflect the changing demands but deliberate attacks on civilians were never allowable under them. As it happens the reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen is that they were military ports and so Americans claimed the whole cities were viable "military targets" though that's... Debated. It is an inevitable consequence of the concept of total war however.
Japan was invited to join them, agreed, and then broke them with glee. It sucks to suck but that's the kind of the war the fascists wanted.
But killing civilians wasn’t taboo at the time
At the time?
An estimated over 940,000 people were killed by direct post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001-2023. Of these, more than 432,000 were civilians. The number of people wounded or ill as a result of the conflicts is far higher, as is the number of civilians who died “indirectly,” as a result of wars’ destruction of economies, healthcare systems, infrastructure and the environment.
Thanks to the internet and spread of information you have to pretend it’s not happening.
Who was worse Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan?
I mean, if we're talking genocidal regimes of the 20th century? Germany and Japan had a really late start compared to the Americans, the British, and the Dutch.
The Germans are primarily vilified for killing other Europeans. But King Leopold's Holocaust in the Congo Free States was nightmarish, killing as many as 13M local residents in pursuit of cheap rubber and lumber. Nevermind British massacres in India, Ireland, and Kenya.
However you slice it, the targets of these war machines are inevitably civilian. Either direct war on industrial centers to limit war time production or indirect siege of a city through embargo or attacks on transports and commercial shipping inevitably and intentionally murders the most vulnerable first and foremost.
But killing civilians wasn’t taboo at the time
Still isn't. All war is, at its heart, a civilian slaughter. The only real way to bring a population to heel is to terrorize them past the point of resistance. From the German conquest of Poland to the American firebombing of Tokyo, mass murder of civilians plays a central role in extorting surrender.
They forgot the first 400 years of nonstop racist and genocidal "heroes". Literally inspired the nazis.
And in the first panel only white people were "heroes" jsyk, the military was segregated. How many black men were awarded the medal of honor for wwii? Literally zero until 1997.
Ethnic minorities in the U.S. Armed Forces during World War II comprised about 13% of all military service members.
Since it is a single dude I think depicting them as a white dude is alright
I just cant think of the 'greatest' generation as anything other than white racists who weren't as evil as the guy in germany. Never think of any of them as heroes but just pieces of shit in America at the right time to stop hating black people long enough to maybe reduce their sentence in hell because they blew the brains out of some nazis.
I wouldn't say they were as bad as Nazis... They were a product of their time. We've come a long day since then, but that doesn't discredit the good things they did.
By that argument Nazism was a product of its time too. A lot of Western Europeans did not see nonwhite people as fully human then. Some went as far as seeing them as animals or soulless. Western Europeans were already committing genocide against non whites via the colonial enterprise, man-made famines etc.
Entire fields of science (race science, "phrenology") were created and religious philosophies were adjusted to accomodate this inhumane worldview.
I wouldn't see Nazism as the antithesis of Western thought at the time. If anything it was the natural progression of some of the darkest aspects of the Western worldview. Hitler is largely vilified for engaging in imperialism against other Western nations. If he had quietly committed genocide in a colony located in the "global south".. I don't see how other Western nations take issue with that since that is what they were doing at the time.
National Socialidm very much was a product if it's time. Imperialism hadn't yet been globally condemed, racism was rampant globally, and genocides and man made famine were happening all over the world. Germany was going through an economic collapse when along comes Mr. Hitler who was able to convince Germany that they should hate certain people and love others.
They were only able to thrive because of the certain set of circumstances that existed at that time. If someone attacked a NATO country today what do you think would happen?
Imperialism was being condemned. The people condemning it didn't count as people at the time.
Germany was going through an economic collapse partly due to punishing terms introduced by other Western countries after losing WW1.
"National socialism" was never actually socialist. It masqueraded as socialism to gain support but was always fascist.
I'd argue fascism only concerns itself with hatred, not love. Had Hitler successfullt genocided the initial groups he blamed for everything, he would have found a new outgroup to target. This would have continued until black haired men with toothbrush moustaches were labelled the problem in need of a "final solution".