Recent comments in /f/history

Alexexy t1_j7muzly wrote

Japan could have assumed the centuries old imperial China bureaucratic structures, cut deals with warlords/the republic, and as long as they left the peasantry alone or at least let them do whatever they want i doubt they would have a mass uprising. It's not like the republic of China was a very popular political force among the peasantry either.

2

checco314 t1_j7muqor wrote

You're gonna want to read "War" or "The Shortest History of War" by Gwynne Dyer.

He has some discussion about the theory that, once total war became a thing and the whole population was motivated to join the war effort, the old game of settling on compromise peace and treaties just didn't fly anymore. The governments put a lot of effort into convincing people that the enemy wasn't just the enemy, but was completely inhuman. And, once convinced, a lot of people suddenly weren't okay with compromise.

1

SaltySandSailor t1_j7muog0 wrote

Maybe in the early years after France fell and Britain was basically fighting alone. There was a very real possibility of them losing the Battle of Britain and being forced to capitulate. Once the US entered the war and Hitler attacked the USSR there was no hope of the Axis winning. They would never have let Hitler stay in power let alone keep the territories he had taken.

1

Vilrek t1_j7mujro wrote

I think the unspoken point was that China's history of being conquered was like, eventually they eclipse their conqueror/assimilate them anyway, such as the Mongols or Manchurians, though I don't think that would happen here, as those two were intent on incorporating China as a whole, while the Japanese mostly just wanted the resources/manpower, like India was to the UK, except a "bit" harsher

2

thebardbecoming t1_j7muid0 wrote

>All we remember now is Britain's resistance, but there were absolutely people who wanted to sue for peace. It's understandable but it's fortunate that Churchill really had a handle on Hitler and knew that this was basically a war to the end, either now or later.

The foresight required to make that decision.. incredible.

1

TyroneLeinster t1_j7muhhj wrote

The thing is, that would have been a bad deal for Germany. They don’t acquire all the resources they wanted, they have this powerful land army with nobody to use it against, and they’re letting their strongest enemy recover. Waging a war of annihilation was likely the correct strategic move on Hitler’s part, he just couldn’t get it done

1

lingh0e t1_j7mu159 wrote

James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed. It's an amazing television series from the 80's that still holds up today. He also wrote a book by the same name, which is also very good.

He does a very good job of condensing human history into specific bits.

6

Masterzjg t1_j7mtzwo wrote

>There's no hindsight to be had here when his own contemporaries saw the looming failure of his military operations.

Except the Allies also debated whether strategic bombing worked. So yes, you're defining hindsight bias.

As for "the generals", of course they blamed Hitler for any mistakes. What are they going to do, blame themselves? Lol.

0

TyroneLeinster t1_j7mtyu2 wrote

I have wondered if Hitler had been able to anticipate the power of atomic weapons, if he would have waged the war differently. The German bomb program was missing resources but had plenty of brain power. There’s easily an alt history where they prioritize maintaining just enough peace to work on that unencumbered, and then the Cold War takes place with Germany rather than USSR as the main nemesis to the west

2