A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
Russia would have had a fair shot if history repeated identically until the instant before d-day. Germany had had its supply lines crumble and their men were approaching child soldier levels of experience. Not to mention Hitler going partway down the path of the god complex and fully down the path of the meth addict after cancer ravaged his system. Not a historian but Russia would have had a fair shot if they were alone. Coin flip or better.
There's a reason Stalin demanded a western front be opened, and it wasn't because he wanted to share credit for the victory over Nazi Germany with the Western Allies. Without D-Day or a similar opening of a western front, the Soviet advance would have been much slower, much bloodier, and the final outcome of their offensives much more dubious.
Italy was in a civil war from 43 on so there was already a foothold for Allies into mainland Europe.
But D-Day was a part of the Tehran agreements that also had USSR joining the war versus Japan after a German defeat. So the failures and victories of the Soviets and Allies cannot really be severed or separated.... (credibly).
While you're correct the advance would have been slower, bloodier, and with a more dubious outcome, we CAN surmise that the Allies failing to secure more of mainland Europe would have easily meant more area for the Soviets to have occupied in the vacuum inevitably left by the collapse of Nazi Germany.
Might've had a North and South France instead of an East and West Germany.
Nah, "if D-Day failed" implies everything up to that point being unchanged save for bad planning, in that scenario the Soviets would have had the war materials the US had been sending them and which they had turned the invasion around using by that point.
You'd need to have failed landings along the Mediterranean as well before we get to the point where the Nazi commanders who didn't have their heads up their own asses last estimated they could turn the momentum back against the Soviets, and at that point the question isn't if Germany could win, it's how far Stalin would be willing to go to take the initiative back again, because the earth is a globe, and if needed, the US and Canada could have deployed their troops into the Soviet Union to mount a reinforcement operation while the UK doubled down on supplying asymmetric resistance against the Nazis, and now we're dealing with what Japan's role as an acting defense against such a maneuver would be or if they'd even be willing to mount a defensive operation against such a troop movement purely for Germany's benefit.
Then again we've gone so far down the rabbit hole now that we've run into the fact that the US would probably have deployed the bomb since Germany was their intended target in the first place anyways, so does Japan just fold seeing that the US can make nukes now after Berlin becomes a glass floor?
WWII is just so all over the damn place that any point falling the other direction spirals half a million what ifs, none of which end up being answered really well in alt-hist media purely because people just have a really hard time picturing all the angles of attack in a war that truly encompasses the whole world in scope.
fact that the US would probably have deployed the bomb since Germany was their intended target in the first place anyways
While physicists originally feared the Germans developing the bomb, the intended target was always Japan because the Americans where racist.
Shauns video is long but worthwhile .
You can tell it's history understander time when the topic is "the Allies helped Russia".
In absolutely unrelated news, when I was 4, my mom helped me make cookies. They came out great.
Oh look, it's the understander!
Remind me of who won that war?
I'm pretty sure the Ukrainians won that one too.
Well unfortunately the first part is starting to be proven right, the Ukrainians are starting to give in to the sheer pressure of the infinite manpower of the Russian army.
Infinite how? Both countries have millions of military aged men, before either country actually runs out of manpower there would have to be a hundred Stalingrad battles. Clearly the population amount is not the bottleneck here. For either of them to use manpower as a “weapon” they’d have to throw naked men at machine guns hoping that bullets can’t be resupplied faster than they can draft.
Russia like any other nation has a very limited amount of manpower that they can leverage before consequences start to hit. So far they have avoided another mobilisation, but if the numbers dwindle enough they’ll have to do it and that is going to be very unpopular. They can’t afford to grind their men the way they’re doing but they’re doing it anyway, probably because they want to project the image of “endless manpower Russia” - if they can keep the farce long enough then maybe Ukraine’s allies will give up.
By believing this tankie nonsense you’re helping them. Don’t.
Russia has already started to try to find new sources of conscripts - estimates peg that between 40 to as much as 75% of the originally eligible are dead or got the hell outta Dodge. This is potentially why they just criminalized homosexuality - "you're gay, you either go to prison for life (where you will likely be killed) or you get conscripted. Your choice". Shit, they asked North Korea of all places for soldiers.
Aaaand... what about Japan?
A lovely place to visit, but the work culture is a potential negative for those thinking of making a longterm move.
They still haven't realized Russia is not the USSR.
Wasn't the majority of those Russian soldiers in WW2 made of Ukrainians?
This seems unlikely given the population disparity between the Russians and Ukrainians (which was similar then as it is today) and the casualty figures. I can't find actual estimates of the ethnic breakdown of the army, but there are breakdowns of casualties by SSR. Obviously SSR is not a perfect analogue of ethnicity, but the numbers are far enough apart that I think it does the job here. Roughly 65% of military casualties were from Russia, 15% from Ukraine. Ukrainians were one of only two groups to be overrepresented as a proportion of casualty figures relative to their population though, the other being Belarusians.
No, the makeup of the Soviet military in WW2 was pretty proportional in terms of Ukrainians (and other minorities) to Russians. However, much of Ukraine was denied to the Soviet Union as a recruiting ground due to early Nazi successes, so one could argue that Ukrainians were overrepresented in comparison to the overall manpower that the USSR had at its disposal.
the allies never could have won if the russians hadn't raped their way across Europe!
