You must log in or register to comment.
As it happens you don’t actually have to be a social chauvinist for the country in which you reside.
It’s a really complicated situation as far as my understanding goes (I’m British for context). I believe most British would support Irish unification, at least from the people I speak to. But still the majority (or close to) would vote to remain in the UK. Plus it’ll be outrageously expensive a transition for Ireland. I don’t know why this is and would like to know.
It’s not an easy situation, and in my own personal opinion we should be uniting as friends, allies and equals.
As a UK person, I look at Japan as a nation very similar to ours, they’ve successfully united 4 islands (plus many small) much larger than the UK and I’d love to understand how it seems so easy. They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.
They had just as many conquering bastards, but everyone is happy being Japanese.
you should definitely let the occupied people of Okinawa know that
Do they not want do be Japanese? I have no idea.
No they do not, and Japanese along with Americans continuously commit atrocities against them and poison their water with the outflow from the US military base.
Sorry, I was thinking of Hokkaido although I think both options could educate me. My understanding is that Hokkaido is the crazy northerners. Again apologies for misunderstanding you, I’m terrible at non English words.
Basically, the Ryukyu Islands have been historically an independent with their own distinct culture, and ties to China. They were annexed by Japan in 1879 during the Meiji Restoration, becoming Okinawa Prefecture. This annexation erased their sovereignty and imposed Japanese assimilation policies that suppressed indigenous language and traditions.
After WW2, Okinawa was placed under US military occupation due to its strategic Pacific location, hosting extensive U.S. bases. Today, Okinawa remains burdened with 70% of US military facilities in Japan, linked to environmental damage, accidents, and crimes by personnel.
The modern Ryukyu independence movement emerged from this history of subjugation. Okinawans want to restore their language, traditions, and identity suppressed by Japan. They want to evict US bases from their land, and to become independent from Japan.
That’s a very good summary. Do Okinawans feel closer to other Pacific island nations that to Japan? Also, Pacific islanders are natural rugby players, does Japan get all their players from there? I could look this up, but it feels better to asm questions from someone who’s knowledgeable. And I love rugby.
I read back my comment and realised I didn’t acknowledge you effort enough. Thank you a lot for putting in the time to answer so thoroughly and it means a lot to me.
Also…I can’t figure out how to edit on this app…this seems like anti UK bot posting. Which there is a lot of. Putin is really angry with us apparently.
The whole planet is angry at your state if you didn’t notice
I did, it does confuse me a little. As a colonial power UK gets all the hate. France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany etc get let off. Even though UK released it’s colonies in legal and peaceful ways on the whole.
Even though UK released it’s colonies in legal and peaceful ways on the whole.
Islas Malvinas
France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany etc get let off.
Don’t worry, they are also remembered
So I was going to fact check myself before I responded. But I thought it’d be more interesting to be wrong on what I think I know.
Faulkands were never occupied by Argentina. They were claimed for France and then removed by the British. It’s been British ever since and I think the few occupants want to remain British.
Depends how far you want to keep going back…English talking about Russia and Ukraine like they don’t still occupy most of Wales
Depends how far you want to keep going back ….English talking about Russia and Ukraine like we don’t still occupy all of Cornwall.
Depends how far you want to keep going back ….Wessex dudes talking about Russia and Ukraine like we don’t still occupy all of Mercia.
Depends how far you want go back, Saruman talking about Minis Tirith, when we still don’t occupy all of Rohan.
They talk shit on every country as if they live in a utopia which is genuinely hilarious
I love this logic.
If we follow it, then nobody should have stood up to Hitler, because it would mean allying with the racist US and imperial Britain.
Because when other countries “stood up” to Hitler it was for moral reasons 🤡
LMFAO this is what happens when you get “education” under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
cough non agression pact cough
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them. But you seem kinda hellbent on specialising the one that explicitly carved up several countries that were about to be invaded a literal week before the invasions started.
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them are viewed as much of anything because nobody ever brings them up. Yet if someone has the gall to claim that the Soviets fought (not even beat) the Nazis, fuckers like you come in to harp on about muh Muhluhtov-Ribbenslop pact.
I think your ignorance is rather showing here. “Appeasement” has literally become a filthy word politically because of those exact pacts. Except for Italy, which ended up an axis power in and of itself so I’m not quite sure wtf you think putting that in accomplished.
You are getting very weirdly het up about people acknowledging the fact that pact occurred. The USSR literally did change sides mid-war. This is fact. That doesn’t negate their part in ending the war (there is literally a saying about british intelligence, US hardware and russian blood) but to act like they were the sole saviours of europe is just as much bullshit as the americans claiming the same
How many people a month were dying because of the Nazis?
I love how you ignore those lives as meaningless.
Then we might as well ask how many people a months has US led world order killed since WW2 ended.
You’re the one saying we shouldn’t take any actions unless they are morally blameless.
I’ll be the first to say the US should end its wars. What I don’t understand how not using the Dems to get rid of Trump improves the situation.
Nah that’s not what I was saying at all. It’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re using. What I was actually saying is that not only would’ve USSR defeated the nazis on their own, what the west accomplished was a net negative for the world. Had US not gotten itself involved, then Europe would’ve almost certainly have become communist. There wouldn’t have been wars in Vietnam and Korea, Afghanistan, and many other horrors the empire continues to enact, and we wouldn’t be living in capitalist hell in the west today.
Sorry. I thought we were dealing with getting stuff done now.
I didn’t realize you wanted to talk about alternate history.
My mistake.
No, we are not dealing with alternative history. We are dealing with the history of what the west proceeded to do after the war ended. If you’re going to talk about how many people died then you have to include all the people that the west brutally massacred during the Cold War and continues to massacre today. Because your claim is that the world order that arose out of US participating in the war was a net positive. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to help you understand this.
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn’t contribute to the war effort at all.
It’s likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it’s estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it’s more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
LOL this guy again
It’s obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That’s a combined 27 million, which isn’t exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn’t “win the war for the rest of the Allies” or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a “pinprick” is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were “a great help”.
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
Don’t forget the Falklands.
Never heard of them. Maybe you mean the Malvinas.
Ah yes. Whataboutism. Suppose a robber acts in defense of a person about to be robbed. That may or may not make them a hypocrite, but it certainly doesn’t make them wrong.
Or would you say it would somehow be more right for the robber to stand back and allow the robbery “because they’re in no position to point fingers”?
It’s you that is whatabouting. We could (Read:should) have defended them without robbing their land.
Further to that; it doesn’t excuse the fact that we have never returned the land to them. Bit of a process appreciated, but it would have made the incredibly difficult and moronic brexit process a bit easier.
I’m sorry, but I have literally no idea what you’re talking about. Who’s robbing what land? Are we talking about Ukraine or Ireland?
Because I’m here talking about Ukraine and the UK.
Ukraine, Ireland, Palestine…
This might surprise you, but that didn’t help clearing up anything. If you have an argument to make, make an argument. That way I can either agree with you or retort.
No, I don’t consider listing countries or regions an argument. Denmark, Belgium, French Polynesia. Now you might wonder where I’m going with that, but I’m not going to tell you. I’ll just expect you to read my mind. That’s communication, you see.
I know. I was being a cock. I thought you’d mentioned Ireland, fuck knows how. My comments are null, void, and pointless.
