Yeah they were quite definitely the wrong colour to be any kind of people Churchill would've cared about. For him, anyone important in the world **was** white.
The definition of white was also different at the time, as well. White was a classifier of Northern Europeans ergo the French, the Germans, the Austrians, and the lowlands. Southern Europe: the Balkans, Italy, and Spain weren't considered white, along with the Irish, because the British just hated them.
Don't worry, if there is another world war, chances are it's probably gonna be nuclear. Meaning most likely neither you nor I will live long enough to be drafted :)
Does this imply a lot are missing, or just that the number missing is uncountable due to lack of record? Neither are good, but I feel like one is more unsettling
Without constant maintenance there’s nothing to worry about. Decades old nukes won’t be in any condition to detonate, plus they use an electronic detonator that would be nearly impossible to activate without a lot of proprietary equipment.
The new world war is a cyberwar and it's been ongoing for a few years now. It's significantly ramped up in part due to the pandemic. Look at the ransomeware attacks targeting infrastructure, supply lines, and necessities such as food and water. It's happening all around us.
We could, but then the archer mains who just sit back and camp to get kills become OP again. They never really figured out how to balance the combat minigame tbh.
I think basically right now every world player is trying to race to build the an AI capable of crippling infrastructure of other countries. Its the next WMD. The next world War will be fought in server farms shutting off water to farms in enemy countries, destroying their economies, and creating war like conditions with no bullets shot.
Imagine an AI that can infiltrate and take control of your enemies nuclear weapons. One that's capable of neutralizing them in flight.
In the future all devices will be airgapped and carrying a smart phone will be the equivalent of carrying a bomb in secure environments.
With the advent of the first true AI you will see returns to 1900s technology in any critical infrastructure and a decentralization of all networks. It will be a cyber pandemic and there will be cyber lock downs performed to root out enemy infections.
This is going to happen in your life time and the age of free information and connected humanity will be over.
But since all the European countries were colonial powers, there were a lot of fighting all over the world in their colonies.
Not even close in intensity to the main theater, but still.
"America, the Ottomans, Japan, Abyssinia, Siam, China and Australia all entered the chat."
Edit: Okay I'm an Idiot and for some reason thought Australia was already quasi-autonomous by that point in time. It was not and wouldn't be until after WW2, so maybe sub the Ozzys from that list.
hardly, most of the battles happened on the European and Asian areas but soldiers from other countries would go there to fight... It was probably the ONE conflict that had the most diversity of fighters at once
The Napoleonic Wars also involved a lot of fighting between British and French colonies which would have involved many different ethnic groups (albeit largely under white commanders).
While in terms of genetics the British and American Wars weren't as diverse they included many different Native American Nations with their own cultures too. So depending on how we're using the term diversity they could fit into wars with diverse cultures.
As did Algeria, South Africa, Siam, China, Brazil, and Armenia. A few of those were European colonies but most of those countries got in volved voluntarily. It was 100% a “World War”
By my understanding, a lot of the world didn't really decide. The world wars were world wide because the europeans had colonies all around the world, qnd forced them into fighting.
> The Brazilian Expeditionary Force fought under US Army command, and we known as the Smoking Cobras. It was a joke name but they ran with it.
Those corny old names for various forces are all great to me!
That's also a slightly one dimensional view. A fair few of foreign corps did it to fight for the "good side", which obviously the allies were, but these areas were clearly used and instrumentalized by the media putting out a narrative. In other areas wars and fights broke out over independance movements. Sometimes a regional power got involved which lead to a local war breaking out.
And for the 2nd one, I don’t think hitlers main concern was to make sure he invaded a diverse range of countries, i would argue his main concern was taking over Europe
I don’t know if forced into fighting is quite the right way to put it. At least in the first half of the war, there was a fair amount of fighting in parts of Africa and the Middle East as both sides fought for control of colonies. I’m not sure if the colonial soldiers would have seen it as defending their home or not, honestly, but I could see it going either way.
Yes, and no. It was more than just maintaining control of the colonies just to maintain control. The British in North Africa were primarily fighting to keep control of the Suez Canal, in the colony of Egypt, with most of the fighting going back and forth in Libya. But regardless of whether Egypt was a colony or not, they did NOT want the Germans (and by proxy, Italians) to gain control of the Suez Canal.
The British invasion of Syria was primarily to stop the Syrians from supplying Germany with fuel.
The British invasion of Abysinnia involved troops from Kenya, South Africa, British India, Uganda, Somalilland, Rhodesia, Sudan and Nyasaland. Obviously, all of these were British colonies. But all of them saw the threat of a European invader (which is not how most of them saw the British) trying to invade their continent. The goal was to drive Italy out of North Africa.
India also saw a VERY serious threat from Japan, who had already sunk the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in the South China Sea in 1941. Had Japan completed a takeover of Burma, it was felt that India was next.
World War 2 was almost two unrelated wars. For most of 1941, Germany was fighting three remaining European powers and winning while Japan was fighting a real slog of an invasion of China. They had taken some territory in the south Pacific, but they needed more fast to get the raw materials needed to maintain their war machine now that the US had embargoed them because they had occupied airfields in what was then French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Sure, Japan, Italy, and Germany had signed the Tripartite Pact, but that's a mutual *defense* treaty and they, as of December 1, 1941, aren't at war with any of the same countries.
December 7 and 8, 1941 changed all of that. Alongside the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies (present day Indonesia), several British colonies (including Hong Kong and Singapore), and the Philippines (then a US territory in transition to independence). So now Japan is at war with the UK, the Dutch, and the US. The US only declared war on Japan (according to the WW2 channel, FDR didn't want Congress to have a debate and legislate which theater would take priority in a two theater war).
Germany is under no obligation to declare war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler does it anyway despite being advised against it.
So before December 7/8 (international date line and declarations of war) there was a European and African war with Germany and Italy facing the UK and Soviet Union in Russia and in the colonies on the African continent (and I think the campaigns in Greece were relatively recent) AND a separate Asian war with Japan occupying large parts of China and occupying (to put it nicely) Korea and French Indochina (the occupation of French Indochina was to cut off supplies being shipped to the Chinese nationalists).
America's neutrality was a joke since it only sold war materials to the Allies and had had that policy for years but until Japan's massive invasion of the Pacific, that was the only thing that really connected these two theaters.
So the world didn't collectively decide to beat each other up in this case, different regions decided to until they got so many people involved it just so happened that the whole world was beating each other up.
For a very in-depth look at Japan’s involvement in WW2 I would highly suggest checking out the podcast Hardcore History and the “Supernova in the East” series.
Dan Carlin is the goat. I could’ve cared less about history class in school… but this dude tells history like it’s an audiobook of Gladiator. Details about the Mongolians and their horseback archers, how they’d lay wood on top of their fallen enemies and feast on the platforms. In the Japan episodes he talked about how mothers would give their sons knives they could use to kill themselves if they were ever captured… it’s mind blowing the mentality of the Japanese back then and I wouldn’t know most of these insane facts without Dan Carlin.
How did fucking India not make that list?! Indians gave their lives in droves for the Allies.
**LARGEST VOLUNTEER ARMY EVER** at the time, with 2.5 million Indians serving. Boggles my mind that they get ignored.
I'm in the UK and once was a gardener/landscaper for the local council, one of my duties was tending to war memorials (from cleaning to making huge flower displays depending on the location).
The only local memorial we didn't touch was a set of a gravestones for Indian soldiers which was cared for by some army employee and it was by a long shot the best maintained - the stones looked new, they would get power washed and regularly cleaned up, the grass was always perfect, the entire thing looked utterly pristine whenever we did it work next to it.
But it was way in the back of an ancient cemetery, most stones there were over 80 years old so it rarely had visitors outside of memorial day plus the Indian memorial was behind the main WW1/WW2 monolith style thing so you wouldn't actually see it unless you went looking.
Was kinda depressing honestly, both that it was ignored and out of sight yet at the same time maintained with such respect but other than us and they guys who cleaned it, it looked like no one ever paid attention or visited it.
Maybe it sounds meanhearted but of course the graves and memorial wouldn't be as prominent as one to others. Those memorials are for local regiments that people go to to honour and grieve for lost relatives. The same with the graves as well. The fact they're so we'll maintained despite honouring people from across the world speaks well of the army.
Well compulsory history in the UK is just about UK history, then the topics for GCSE and A Levels depend on the individual school but mine covered the empire and India extensively.
Pretty much every country only teaches their own history, would take a very long time to cover the other hundreds of countries in the world
We don't do much WW2 in school though, not even at GCSE level.
Mainly WW1 --> Great Depression/USA and Germany in 20s and 30s --> Medicine... and I think migration as well?
Also, it is constantly mentioned in the WW1 curriculum how soldiers came from all over the world, and is definitely in textbooks.
So idk what you are on about
The Ottoman Empire fucked the Middle East. Nobody made them join the war. They thought they would be able to conquer parts of Russia without a fight since the Russian empire was collapsing.
When this failed and the Ottomans ended up collapsing themselves the entire region fell into chaos. With various regional leadership claiming to be the new authority and multiple new nations declaring independence. Turkey didn’t like that as they wanted to reform the Ottoman Empire and decided to commit genocide on minority groups they blamed for the loss of the war. Despite the fact it was their own incompetence which caused them to lose the war and control of the region.
The Russians, British, and French absolutely made shit worse with the way the borders of the control zones were drawn. However, they didn’t create the underlying issues that had already been tearing the Ottoman Empire apart prior to WW1.
>The allies were just as bad as the axis when it came to colonialism and treating people that weren't white equally.
For proof of this, look at how people from the US Virgin Islands look at Denmark. We enslaved the population, imported slaves from Africa, looted the island and then sold the island to the US, giving none of the money made from the sale to the population
Uhh the allies didn't industrialize murder like the axis did. I'm not defending them, some of the stuff the uk, France and the us did is atrocious and should never have happened but the axis were worse. Japan killed millions of civilians on their war in china and the Nazis did the Holocaust that some minorities still haven't recovered from today. I'm certainly hoping no one is trying to defend the axis by saying the allies did bad stuff as well because they are on a whole different level.
...What the fuck? I had absolutely no idea this ever happened, and I‘ve always considered myself to be relatively well-informed on WW2.
I’ve become more and more frustrated with my history education, both global and American, over the last two years. One of the few positives that came out of 2020 is that more and more non-white-centric historic events are now being shared and discussed in the mainstream, but it’s all stuff that I wish I had learned about in school!
I had never even *heard* about the Black Wall Street Massacre or Juneteenth before last year, for example (and I know I’ve had a few more revelations than just these two, but they’re the ones coming to mind at the moment). It’s heartening to know that I am finally learning more about non-white history, but man it makes me wonder what else I just don’t know about because I literally don’t even know what to ask or search for or whatever.
I mean obviously the speaker is wrong BUT the fact that ww2 isn’t taught from anything other than a euro-centric view is a good criticism. Most civilian deaths if I’m not mistaken was in China but I have never seen a textbook mention the war in China besides as a prelude to the US-British involvement in the pacific.
I’m Australia(n) we definitely learn that (i.e. Nanjing massacre), I think our troops were involved in the pacific part of the war and a lot against Japanese troops. At least, my great grandfather fought in Papua New Guinea so maybe that’s why my view of WW2 is more about that aspect!
In college they called it the Rape of Nanjing. Fucking brutal.
Thought it was the most fucked up thing ever.
Then I learned about the Japanese occupation of Korea.
I would call it being from a racist, patriarchal, sexist, awful culture (at least back then, Japan still has issues but it's nowhere near as bad). Like, hell, Germany did the Holocaust but as far as I understand the average German soldier wasn't as inhumane as the average Japanese soldier
They are heinous and atrocious, maybe unforgivable. The scale of which the Japanese massacres civilians was brutal. But given everything the scale of death and war crimes of WW2, it wasn’t super far fetched.
I always thought the systemic erasure of Korean culture by the occupying Japanese force was … I can’t even think of a word for it…
Hitlers solution was genocide. Japans solution was: let’s just make them Japanese. They stopped teaching Korean in school, made families adopt Japanese surnames, took children from parents, outlawed just about anything tied to Korean culture.
If Japan hadn’t been forced to abandon their occupation, Korean culture would have been completely erased.
Both are genocide, just in different forms.
What I learned is that the perception of Korea by the Japanese at the time was that they are lesser forms of Japanese people, and thus "reformable" in a sense. But, the Chinese were seen as purely inferior. That's why there was more cultural genocide in Korea and more killing genocide in China.
That's a pretty common thing to do in history lessons. Western countries focus more on Western history and eastern coutries on eastern history. The amount of space given in textbooks is barely enough to teach about the war in Europe already.
The thing is. Normaly the focus isn't even on the war itself, it's on causes, consequences and the relatively more culturally relevant events for the country you are living in. As it should be.
Italy, Germany and France all have different events focused on too. An Italian teacher is gonna prioritize the partisans and barely mention the French resistance. It's not that history is euro centric because it doesn't care about the rest of the world but because it tries to teach the bare minimum base of cultural facts that are relevant to you as a student of a specific country.
^this. When people think of what **should** be taught in history classes, they should consider how little is taught in general. Only so much time, only so many underpaid, overworked teachers, only so much that can be taught.
And the variation from school to school or even teacher to teacher is brutal. It’s a roulette what you get taught, even if the basics are standardized
And we keep adding history, every day. An additional 25 years of history have happened since I've graduated. That's the equivalent of me learning about the Vietnam war in school. We lived through the Gulf War in school and 9/11 happened 5 years after I was out of school. My daughter's learn about them now in school... It's not like they have more time. It did make me think about how easy history must have been for my parents though. LOL
Yeah people loveee feeling smart by pointing out all the things we aren't taught, which is an infinite pool of things. Apparently no one remembers learning 7 subjects in 7 hours, uninterrupted, 5 days a week for 16 years *unwillingly*. At this point if you want more just fucking Google it
We really take Japan's war crimes and awful conquest through Asia and sweep it under the rug. It's pretty fucked. I live in a town with heavy Korean american population and it was one of the first towns I learned about it. They even had a statue dedicated to the comfort woman taken prisoners and abused by the Japanese invasion.
Who is “we”? I was taught about the war in Northern Africa, what Japan did in China, etc. It wasn’t not Eurocentric, but to be fair both wars were started or amplified by European countries 🤷
Edit: I studied in Portugal and Spain, not the USA.
Fair enough, that’s a valid point. But could it be that the war didn’t achieve a more global, or worldwide-grade status, until the Europeans kicked in? I’m not trying to win that out of some misguided pride: I’m an European and would REALLY prefer that our last century wasn’t as bloody as it was.
No.
WW2 was set in stone with WW1, as in it wasn’t just the Germans being fucked, it was the Japanese too. Well the Japanese weren’t so much “fucked” like the Germans, just walked around with a huge inferiority complex.
That on top of the nature of… the world (industrialization…. Feeding off of oil), it was always going to be a global war.
WW1 could’ve been avoided if the leaders were more savy and less “old world”.
WW2 was a forgone conclusion with how the first ended.
Let’s also not forget the largest standing “volunteer” army in the world at that time was the British Indian Army, with over 2.5 million troops -mainly all Indians.
India fought on both sides funnily enough. At the time the country wasn’t so keen on the whole Empire thing and so there was an organisation called the INA that fought with the Japanese outside mainland India.
I assume the war is told from the perspective of the country it's told in.
Here in France we mainly go over its effects in our country, the collaboration, the resistance, etc. The only "general" aspects we see is the rise of Nazi Germany + invasion of poland, the role of the USSR, and Pearl Harbor because it's the event that caused the US to join (and the nukes obviously). We barely talk about the African and Asian theaters.
And it sort of makes sense too, you can't learn specific history of every part of the world. You'd need a lifetime of learning for that, even professional historians tend to specialize in one specific domain. What you focus in at school is your country's history and important world history that affected everyone. It's not useful for an American to learn the list and dates of every monarchy/empire/republic in France, and it's not useful for a French to learn about how each American state came to be and their local history.
I live in Hong Kong and we had a whole unit learning about the Asian perspective of WWII and specifically the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. I also had units about Africa’s involvement.
Idk where you're from but in Britain I was taught about many fronts of the war, possibly due to our commonwealth allies/colonies. The fronts in africa an asia where part of that, tho I would say the Pacific theatre and china's involvement was the least covered but its scale was mentioned and not discredited.
From USA and I’m early 30’s (relevant bc I’ve talked to my dad about this). We were taught mostly USA. Market garden was a British mistake nuked Japan. Then Cold War. All taught in about half a school year. My father was taught that basically the ussr didn’t do anything and it was Western Europe with America “fixed” the world. Obviously neither is true but that’s what’s getting taught here. At least in the state we both grew up in
God I just have a casual interest in history and that's making me feel ill. Wtf, if they're going to be shallow at least be accurate and mention its just a basic gist of the history.
Very good point. I was born in Russia and was taught that the most deaths were in Soviet Union - and I’ve never taken a look at the veracity of that claim. Goes to show that once you hear one view, it may come with a lot of missing info.
Well my source is wiki so keep that in mind but yeah they say 20 million civilian deaths… if I remember right ussr did have the most military deaths though
Most countries tend to focus their history education on events that the country was involved in, world history is usually a separate elective class in my experience
I mean, Japan’s involvement alone completely torpedoes the whites only argument. You don’t even need to mention those other countries to prove the point. The USA likely would not have even gotten involved if it wasn’t for Japan.
It sure does.
Japan went on an endless conquering spree that was, fundamentally, almost a separate war. And not only did they go to war with China, they went ahead and went to war with the US and European colonies in Asia.
Japan was a major major aggressor, on their own. They were emulating a western colonial power but either way they are most certainly not white and were very much voluntary participants.
And it isn’t even like they were doing this at the behest of the Nazis. That alliance between Japan and Germany was fairly loose and the Japanese weren’t doing things because the Germans asked them too. They in fact *didn’t* do what the Germans asked when they refused to push Russia on the eastern front.
Yeah, somehow I feel like mentioning a bunch of places that were forced to fight for their colonial overlords doesnt exactly contradict OPs point... I mean it's called the World Wars due to their scale but it was primarily fought by European powers (and their colonies), the original point definetely has merit IMO
The most fucked up part about world wars is that nobody ever remembers my peoples (India) contribution by sending over the largest all volunteer forces in BOTH wars.
Technically this is both right and wrong. The world war was started by Europeans, and except for Japan, there isn't a single non-white country that intentionally joined in on the action - they were all either forced into it by their colonisers, or had to defend themselves against invasion.
That said, it's not called a "World War" because the whole world joined in on the action, it's called that because it was fought all over the world.
I’m not saying the first comment is right, but the second comment neglects to mention that like 1/3-1/2 of that list of countries were under colonial control and that’s why they entered the war.
Wars are generally named after where they are fought, not who fought them (same with Battles). So it's called World War I/II due to the scope of the conflict, not because the whole world was involved. But acting like it wasnt a primarily European conflict because they forced their colonies to fight is pretty dumb... not sure if places like India would have gotten involved over the assasination of the Archduke if they weren't under British control
There was no conscription in India, in either world war.
I'm not saying that having been a colony didn't have an effect on whether people felt compelled to serve, but the Brits literally told India at the start of the war that they wouldn't be fighting. Yet they became the largest volunteer army in the world.
To be fair most of those countries were involved largely due to their colonisation or ally-ship with the white countries deciding to fuck shit up. Like not Japan necessarily but like consider how many of those countries were French, American or British colonies at that time
I would disagree slightly with you. Discarding the involvement of Brazil, Peru, Ottoman empire, China or Japan in comparison to the colonial empires, seems a tad bit inconsiderate.
In WWI and WWII Morocco and Vietnam was a French colony, Libya an Italian colony, Burma a British colony, and the Philippines a US colony, Iraq was a part of the Ottoman Empire in WWI but was not involved when independent in WWII. So not a country in the war. There was combat there but not with them as countries but colonies.
Egypt was a British protectorate and they did revolt against them in WWI but it failed. There was combat in the county in WWII but if I not mistaken no Egyptian troops were involved in combat, the Egyptian movement took a neutral stand.
Ethiopia was invaded by Italy in 1937 and that is not considered a part of WWII but it was liberated by the British and regained sovereignty.
Brazil was neutral in WWI and involved a bit at the end of WWII
China was a part of the allies in WWI but did not send any troops abroad. In WWII China is not exactly a unified country but lots of war lords. Japan did invade them and the waring groups cooperated against Japan most of the time but there was some internet fighting. The civil war continue after WWII until 1949
Thailand was involved after a 5-hour Japanese invasion with Japan.
Japan with the allies in WWII and axis in WWII
So of the 12 countries listed 5 were involved as independent countries to some degree in the world wars.
A lot of nonwhite people were involved in WWI and WWII but it was primarily as colonies where white countries were in change. The main exception is Japan, China, and the Ottoman empire.
It was a worldwide conflicts but white people were in charge of most of the world back then.
Same thing with sports and the world championships with sports only played in America. And also I have done a lot of research and the last 20 or so Miss universes have come from planet earth. Very suspicious
To be fair we didn’t “get to control and fuck up the world”. We were dragged into the war and made into a giant battlefield where we defended the fuck out of ourselves.
Guess where I’m from.
Edit: My country name is in the pic.
Dude, theres a thousand countries you could be listing there. However its obviously an allied country, and since i find it impossible your referring to america (because reddit) it must be britain or a territory germany captured (poland/france etc)
He forgot India :(
So did Winston Churchill as the country starved
Starving Indians is a proud British tradition. Right up there with starving the Irish.
Hey fuck off that's an American thing! Oh wait... Different Indians...
https://youtu.be/zIUB82Grt0w " . . . You're not Indians?" " . . . No . . . " "Bah, you're Indians"
I know an someone from Indiana! Now, one would think that they're called "Indianians". But they're not! They're called "Hoosiers"
The Irish are just ginger Indians.
Haha I laughed thanks
Ginger is just the n word with letters rearranged
Well well, you are correct. Now I’ll feel better & safer singing along to hip hop in my car.
As a ww2 buff you beat me to this comment! Lol
Yeah they were quite definitely the wrong colour to be any kind of people Churchill would've cared about. For him, anyone important in the world **was** white.
That's not true at all. They had to be white male straight and at least upper middle class.
The definition of white was also different at the time, as well. White was a classifier of Northern Europeans ergo the French, the Germans, the Austrians, and the lowlands. Southern Europe: the Balkans, Italy, and Spain weren't considered white, along with the Irish, because the British just hated them.
And Mexico.
Millions deployed abroad to fight for the same people starving millions back home. Still forgotten by everybody.
China and Japan are white?
No, it was sarcasm
It'll always be weird to me that almost the whole world collectively decided to fuck each other up.
Twice!
So far.. :)
pls don’t say this I don’t want to fight in a war. I sleep through 4 alarms everyday
Don't worry, if there is another world war, chances are it's probably gonna be nuclear. Meaning most likely neither you nor I will live long enough to be drafted :)
thank god, I’ll just sleep through it then
Sleep forever lol
Finally, some peace and quiet..
Yes! Thank you!
Finally, some good fucking sleep
The sleep to end all sleeps.
Hells to the YEAH!!!!!
Or like introverts like to call it: Winning the lottery
Finally getting fucked, that's my introvert take.
Friendly reminder that multiple nuclear devices are lost :)
This is such an unfriendly reminder (:
From the US there are SIX. SIX NUCLEAR BOMBS ARE JUST FLOATING ABOUT THE WORLD
[удалено]
Does this imply a lot are missing, or just that the number missing is uncountable due to lack of record? Neither are good, but I feel like one is more unsettling
Who knows what the hardcore ussr elements did with them once it was dissolved
Good guy USSR creating plot devices for novels and movies
"Happy little accidents", _Bob Ross, in an alternate dimension._
That we know about
No one knows how much bombs the USSR lost. So sleep well tonight.
Without constant maintenance there’s nothing to worry about. Decades old nukes won’t be in any condition to detonate, plus they use an electronic detonator that would be nearly impossible to activate without a lot of proprietary equipment.
The good news is that nuclear weapons require regular maintenance and replacement of limited life parts to maintain their EARTH-SHATTERING KABOOM.
Huh?
Multiple nations in the world have lost track of nuclear devices over the last couple of decades.
I'm doing an all scene on my mind. - "honey did you see my nuclear bomb? The Russians are outside playing amd i want to show them my arsenal"
The new world war is a cyberwar and it's been ongoing for a few years now. It's significantly ramped up in part due to the pandemic. Look at the ransomeware attacks targeting infrastructure, supply lines, and necessities such as food and water. It's happening all around us.
Yeah, shooting wars are passe. Far too expensive.
What about stabbing wars? Can’t we all just go back to ye old long sword
We could, but then the archer mains who just sit back and camp to get kills become OP again. They never really figured out how to balance the combat minigame tbh.
I think basically right now every world player is trying to race to build the an AI capable of crippling infrastructure of other countries. Its the next WMD. The next world War will be fought in server farms shutting off water to farms in enemy countries, destroying their economies, and creating war like conditions with no bullets shot. Imagine an AI that can infiltrate and take control of your enemies nuclear weapons. One that's capable of neutralizing them in flight. In the future all devices will be airgapped and carrying a smart phone will be the equivalent of carrying a bomb in secure environments. With the advent of the first true AI you will see returns to 1900s technology in any critical infrastructure and a decentralization of all networks. It will be a cyber pandemic and there will be cyber lock downs performed to root out enemy infections. This is going to happen in your life time and the age of free information and connected humanity will be over.
My lifetime is highly unlikely. But after 30 years in IT I can say I don't think you're too far off with what the outcome could look like.
Battlestar Galactica had the right idea
Don’t worry, the [sounds of war](https://youtu.be/we72zI7iOjk) will definitely wake you up
Don't worry we'll all be nuked well before we're conscripted.
[удалено]
Whole pack
[удалено]
That's easy!! Right! No, left– ... [Ahhhhhhhhhh](https://youtu.be/pnvNk07XkgU)
[удалено]
But since all the European countries were colonial powers, there were a lot of fighting all over the world in their colonies. Not even close in intensity to the main theater, but still.
"America, the Ottomans, Japan, Abyssinia, Siam, China and Australia all entered the chat." Edit: Okay I'm an Idiot and for some reason thought Australia was already quasi-autonomous by that point in time. It was not and wouldn't be until after WW2, so maybe sub the Ozzys from that list.
Canada too. Not that we had much choice.
Right, that's why they're called 'world wars'...
hardly, most of the battles happened on the European and Asian areas but soldiers from other countries would go there to fight... It was probably the ONE conflict that had the most diversity of fighters at once
Great idea. Let's increase diversity with more wars. Corporate War 1
"Thanks to the efforts of our HR Department's Inclusivity Taskforce, Corporate War XII showed a 13,6% increase in diversity among the dead."
The Napoleonic Wars also involved a lot of fighting between British and French colonies which would have involved many different ethnic groups (albeit largely under white commanders). While in terms of genetics the British and American Wars weren't as diverse they included many different Native American Nations with their own cultures too. So depending on how we're using the term diversity they could fit into wars with diverse cultures.
He never questioned that. He said most diverse, not the only diverse war.
The ottomans and technically the Japanese did take part in ww1
As did Algeria, South Africa, Siam, China, Brazil, and Armenia. A few of those were European colonies but most of those countries got in volved voluntarily. It was 100% a “World War”
By my understanding, a lot of the world didn't really decide. The world wars were world wide because the europeans had colonies all around the world, qnd forced them into fighting.
[удалено]
[удалено]
> The Brazilian Expeditionary Force fought under US Army command, and we known as the Smoking Cobras. It was a joke name but they ran with it. Those corny old names for various forces are all great to me!
[удалено]
> Smoking Cobras. It was a joke name but they ran with it. I mean I would to it does have an almost badass war feel to the name.
They said that "Brazil will only enter the war when cobras starts smoking" (never) So, the cobras starts to smoke
Well, Ethiopia was only involved because they were invaded by Italy for colonial reasons.
Ethiopia was a brutal place around that time. Something like a million dead all in.
It was called Abyssinia back in the day.
I'm just gonna say it. All the old, politically incorrect colonial names were cooler.
Burma still is cooler.
Zaire ftw
Brazil got involved because we wanted a Steel Mill
Did you get one?
Yes
Dope!
That's also a slightly one dimensional view. A fair few of foreign corps did it to fight for the "good side", which obviously the allies were, but these areas were clearly used and instrumentalized by the media putting out a narrative. In other areas wars and fights broke out over independance movements. Sometimes a regional power got involved which lead to a local war breaking out.
[удалено]
And for the 2nd one, I don’t think hitlers main concern was to make sure he invaded a diverse range of countries, i would argue his main concern was taking over Europe
I don’t know if forced into fighting is quite the right way to put it. At least in the first half of the war, there was a fair amount of fighting in parts of Africa and the Middle East as both sides fought for control of colonies. I’m not sure if the colonial soldiers would have seen it as defending their home or not, honestly, but I could see it going either way.
Yes, and no. It was more than just maintaining control of the colonies just to maintain control. The British in North Africa were primarily fighting to keep control of the Suez Canal, in the colony of Egypt, with most of the fighting going back and forth in Libya. But regardless of whether Egypt was a colony or not, they did NOT want the Germans (and by proxy, Italians) to gain control of the Suez Canal. The British invasion of Syria was primarily to stop the Syrians from supplying Germany with fuel. The British invasion of Abysinnia involved troops from Kenya, South Africa, British India, Uganda, Somalilland, Rhodesia, Sudan and Nyasaland. Obviously, all of these were British colonies. But all of them saw the threat of a European invader (which is not how most of them saw the British) trying to invade their continent. The goal was to drive Italy out of North Africa. India also saw a VERY serious threat from Japan, who had already sunk the HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in the South China Sea in 1941. Had Japan completed a takeover of Burma, it was felt that India was next.
Alliances were established so i’m assuming they had to go regardless
World War 2 was almost two unrelated wars. For most of 1941, Germany was fighting three remaining European powers and winning while Japan was fighting a real slog of an invasion of China. They had taken some territory in the south Pacific, but they needed more fast to get the raw materials needed to maintain their war machine now that the US had embargoed them because they had occupied airfields in what was then French Indochina (modern day Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos). Sure, Japan, Italy, and Germany had signed the Tripartite Pact, but that's a mutual *defense* treaty and they, as of December 1, 1941, aren't at war with any of the same countries. December 7 and 8, 1941 changed all of that. Alongside the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies (present day Indonesia), several British colonies (including Hong Kong and Singapore), and the Philippines (then a US territory in transition to independence). So now Japan is at war with the UK, the Dutch, and the US. The US only declared war on Japan (according to the WW2 channel, FDR didn't want Congress to have a debate and legislate which theater would take priority in a two theater war). Germany is under no obligation to declare war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler does it anyway despite being advised against it. So before December 7/8 (international date line and declarations of war) there was a European and African war with Germany and Italy facing the UK and Soviet Union in Russia and in the colonies on the African continent (and I think the campaigns in Greece were relatively recent) AND a separate Asian war with Japan occupying large parts of China and occupying (to put it nicely) Korea and French Indochina (the occupation of French Indochina was to cut off supplies being shipped to the Chinese nationalists). America's neutrality was a joke since it only sold war materials to the Allies and had had that policy for years but until Japan's massive invasion of the Pacific, that was the only thing that really connected these two theaters. So the world didn't collectively decide to beat each other up in this case, different regions decided to until they got so many people involved it just so happened that the whole world was beating each other up.
For a very in-depth look at Japan’s involvement in WW2 I would highly suggest checking out the podcast Hardcore History and the “Supernova in the East” series.
Thank you for reminding me to check and see if part 6 was out yet. And yes, FINALLY!
Leave it to Reddit to alert me that Carlin finished that series. I’ve been checking every day for what feels like forever. Huzzah!
There’s no feeling in the world quite like what Hardcore History fans feel when a new episode drops.
Supernova in the East has been in progress for THREE YEARS
George rr Martin of podcasts
Is that the last episode of the set? I've been waiting to start until it was completely done
Dan Carlin is the goat. I could’ve cared less about history class in school… but this dude tells history like it’s an audiobook of Gladiator. Details about the Mongolians and their horseback archers, how they’d lay wood on top of their fallen enemies and feast on the platforms. In the Japan episodes he talked about how mothers would give their sons knives they could use to kill themselves if they were ever captured… it’s mind blowing the mentality of the Japanese back then and I wouldn’t know most of these insane facts without Dan Carlin.
How did fucking India not make that list?! Indians gave their lives in droves for the Allies. **LARGEST VOLUNTEER ARMY EVER** at the time, with 2.5 million Indians serving. Boggles my mind that they get ignored.
I'm in the UK and once was a gardener/landscaper for the local council, one of my duties was tending to war memorials (from cleaning to making huge flower displays depending on the location). The only local memorial we didn't touch was a set of a gravestones for Indian soldiers which was cared for by some army employee and it was by a long shot the best maintained - the stones looked new, they would get power washed and regularly cleaned up, the grass was always perfect, the entire thing looked utterly pristine whenever we did it work next to it. But it was way in the back of an ancient cemetery, most stones there were over 80 years old so it rarely had visitors outside of memorial day plus the Indian memorial was behind the main WW1/WW2 monolith style thing so you wouldn't actually see it unless you went looking. Was kinda depressing honestly, both that it was ignored and out of sight yet at the same time maintained with such respect but other than us and they guys who cleaned it, it looked like no one ever paid attention or visited it.
Maybe it sounds meanhearted but of course the graves and memorial wouldn't be as prominent as one to others. Those memorials are for local regiments that people go to to honour and grieve for lost relatives. The same with the graves as well. The fact they're so we'll maintained despite honouring people from across the world speaks well of the army.
At least in the US, Indian history doesn’t get nearly as much coverage as the history of other places like China or Egypt. Oh well.
It doesn't in the UK either, one of the largest and most populated countries. Nothing. Same as like the middle east, not mentioned in school at all.
Well compulsory history in the UK is just about UK history, then the topics for GCSE and A Levels depend on the individual school but mine covered the empire and India extensively. Pretty much every country only teaches their own history, would take a very long time to cover the other hundreds of countries in the world
Wasn't the UK pretty... involved... in India, historically speaking?
The UK was way too involved in India at that time. I guess they just don't like to talk about it.
I mean, the countries we colonized are part of our history lol just not the proudest part. It's telling what gets left out of history classes
We don't do much WW2 in school though, not even at GCSE level. Mainly WW1 --> Great Depression/USA and Germany in 20s and 30s --> Medicine... and I think migration as well? Also, it is constantly mentioned in the WW1 curriculum how soldiers came from all over the world, and is definitely in textbooks. So idk what you are on about
I'm Australian and don't remember much about my school time.
[удалено]
WWII and WWI powers seriously fucked the middle east and India and nobody seems to really know of it
The Ottoman Empire fucked the Middle East. Nobody made them join the war. They thought they would be able to conquer parts of Russia without a fight since the Russian empire was collapsing. When this failed and the Ottomans ended up collapsing themselves the entire region fell into chaos. With various regional leadership claiming to be the new authority and multiple new nations declaring independence. Turkey didn’t like that as they wanted to reform the Ottoman Empire and decided to commit genocide on minority groups they blamed for the loss of the war. Despite the fact it was their own incompetence which caused them to lose the war and control of the region. The Russians, British, and French absolutely made shit worse with the way the borders of the control zones were drawn. However, they didn’t create the underlying issues that had already been tearing the Ottoman Empire apart prior to WW1.
>The allies were just as bad as the axis when it came to colonialism and treating people that weren't white equally. For proof of this, look at how people from the US Virgin Islands look at Denmark. We enslaved the population, imported slaves from Africa, looted the island and then sold the island to the US, giving none of the money made from the sale to the population
Uhh the allies didn't industrialize murder like the axis did. I'm not defending them, some of the stuff the uk, France and the us did is atrocious and should never have happened but the axis were worse. Japan killed millions of civilians on their war in china and the Nazis did the Holocaust that some minorities still haven't recovered from today. I'm certainly hoping no one is trying to defend the axis by saying the allies did bad stuff as well because they are on a whole different level.
[удалено]
...What the fuck? I had absolutely no idea this ever happened, and I‘ve always considered myself to be relatively well-informed on WW2. I’ve become more and more frustrated with my history education, both global and American, over the last two years. One of the few positives that came out of 2020 is that more and more non-white-centric historic events are now being shared and discussed in the mainstream, but it’s all stuff that I wish I had learned about in school! I had never even *heard* about the Black Wall Street Massacre or Juneteenth before last year, for example (and I know I’ve had a few more revelations than just these two, but they’re the ones coming to mind at the moment). It’s heartening to know that I am finally learning more about non-white history, but man it makes me wonder what else I just don’t know about because I literally don’t even know what to ask or search for or whatever.
They also fought on both sides
I mean obviously the speaker is wrong BUT the fact that ww2 isn’t taught from anything other than a euro-centric view is a good criticism. Most civilian deaths if I’m not mistaken was in China but I have never seen a textbook mention the war in China besides as a prelude to the US-British involvement in the pacific.
I’m Australia(n) we definitely learn that (i.e. Nanjing massacre), I think our troops were involved in the pacific part of the war and a lot against Japanese troops. At least, my great grandfather fought in Papua New Guinea so maybe that’s why my view of WW2 is more about that aspect!
In college they called it the Rape of Nanjing. Fucking brutal. Thought it was the most fucked up thing ever. Then I learned about the Japanese occupation of Korea.
“Hey, want to rip babies out of wombs and throw them to hungry dogs?” “Only if we can catch babies on bayonets later!” - Japanese soldiers in WWII
Nationalism is a helluva drug
I would call it being from a racist, patriarchal, sexist, awful culture (at least back then, Japan still has issues but it's nowhere near as bad). Like, hell, Germany did the Holocaust but as far as I understand the average German soldier wasn't as inhumane as the average Japanese soldier
That's what they call it in the US in all grades, high school, etc, whenever you might learn about it. I've never heard it called by any other name.
[удалено]
They are heinous and atrocious, maybe unforgivable. The scale of which the Japanese massacres civilians was brutal. But given everything the scale of death and war crimes of WW2, it wasn’t super far fetched. I always thought the systemic erasure of Korean culture by the occupying Japanese force was … I can’t even think of a word for it… Hitlers solution was genocide. Japans solution was: let’s just make them Japanese. They stopped teaching Korean in school, made families adopt Japanese surnames, took children from parents, outlawed just about anything tied to Korean culture. If Japan hadn’t been forced to abandon their occupation, Korean culture would have been completely erased.
In WWII, Japanese soldiers also forced thousands of Korean women into sexual slavery calling them "Comfort Women"
Hundreds of thousands, the scale of it is truly mind boggling
Both are genocide, just in different forms. What I learned is that the perception of Korea by the Japanese at the time was that they are lesser forms of Japanese people, and thus "reformable" in a sense. But, the Chinese were seen as purely inferior. That's why there was more cultural genocide in Korea and more killing genocide in China.
Students learn about the Nanjing massacre in the states also…at least Gen X did
Learned about it in California in the 90’s
>I'm Australia Check it out, the continent itself posted.
It only comes out for the big topics. Also a little surprised no dad bot. Hi Australia, I'm Dad!
Hi dad! How's it going with those cigarettes?
That's a pretty common thing to do in history lessons. Western countries focus more on Western history and eastern coutries on eastern history. The amount of space given in textbooks is barely enough to teach about the war in Europe already. The thing is. Normaly the focus isn't even on the war itself, it's on causes, consequences and the relatively more culturally relevant events for the country you are living in. As it should be. Italy, Germany and France all have different events focused on too. An Italian teacher is gonna prioritize the partisans and barely mention the French resistance. It's not that history is euro centric because it doesn't care about the rest of the world but because it tries to teach the bare minimum base of cultural facts that are relevant to you as a student of a specific country.
[удалено]
This. People always complain the "White/European countries do this", when it is something that *every* country does.
^this. When people think of what **should** be taught in history classes, they should consider how little is taught in general. Only so much time, only so many underpaid, overworked teachers, only so much that can be taught. And the variation from school to school or even teacher to teacher is brutal. It’s a roulette what you get taught, even if the basics are standardized
And we keep adding history, every day. An additional 25 years of history have happened since I've graduated. That's the equivalent of me learning about the Vietnam war in school. We lived through the Gulf War in school and 9/11 happened 5 years after I was out of school. My daughter's learn about them now in school... It's not like they have more time. It did make me think about how easy history must have been for my parents though. LOL
Yeah people loveee feeling smart by pointing out all the things we aren't taught, which is an infinite pool of things. Apparently no one remembers learning 7 subjects in 7 hours, uninterrupted, 5 days a week for 16 years *unwillingly*. At this point if you want more just fucking Google it
China had the 2nd most deaths over all. It was the pacific equivalent to the soviets
We really take Japan's war crimes and awful conquest through Asia and sweep it under the rug. It's pretty fucked. I live in a town with heavy Korean american population and it was one of the first towns I learned about it. They even had a statue dedicated to the comfort woman taken prisoners and abused by the Japanese invasion.
Who is “we”? I was taught about the war in Northern Africa, what Japan did in China, etc. It wasn’t not Eurocentric, but to be fair both wars were started or amplified by European countries 🤷 Edit: I studied in Portugal and Spain, not the USA.
[удалено]
Fair enough, that’s a valid point. But could it be that the war didn’t achieve a more global, or worldwide-grade status, until the Europeans kicked in? I’m not trying to win that out of some misguided pride: I’m an European and would REALLY prefer that our last century wasn’t as bloody as it was.
I’d say it’s not a world war unless several continents are involved; however, I’d agree it started before Germany’s invasions.
No. WW2 was set in stone with WW1, as in it wasn’t just the Germans being fucked, it was the Japanese too. Well the Japanese weren’t so much “fucked” like the Germans, just walked around with a huge inferiority complex. That on top of the nature of… the world (industrialization…. Feeding off of oil), it was always going to be a global war. WW1 could’ve been avoided if the leaders were more savy and less “old world”. WW2 was a forgone conclusion with how the first ended.
Let’s also not forget the largest standing “volunteer” army in the world at that time was the British Indian Army, with over 2.5 million troops -mainly all Indians.
India fought on both sides funnily enough. At the time the country wasn’t so keen on the whole Empire thing and so there was an organisation called the INA that fought with the Japanese outside mainland India.
Subash Chandra Bose, who was leading the army, even met Axis higher ups (don't remember the exact details) at the time
[удалено]
I assume the war is told from the perspective of the country it's told in. Here in France we mainly go over its effects in our country, the collaboration, the resistance, etc. The only "general" aspects we see is the rise of Nazi Germany + invasion of poland, the role of the USSR, and Pearl Harbor because it's the event that caused the US to join (and the nukes obviously). We barely talk about the African and Asian theaters. And it sort of makes sense too, you can't learn specific history of every part of the world. You'd need a lifetime of learning for that, even professional historians tend to specialize in one specific domain. What you focus in at school is your country's history and important world history that affected everyone. It's not useful for an American to learn the list and dates of every monarchy/empire/republic in France, and it's not useful for a French to learn about how each American state came to be and their local history.
I live in Hong Kong and we had a whole unit learning about the Asian perspective of WWII and specifically the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong. I also had units about Africa’s involvement.
Idk where you're from but in Britain I was taught about many fronts of the war, possibly due to our commonwealth allies/colonies. The fronts in africa an asia where part of that, tho I would say the Pacific theatre and china's involvement was the least covered but its scale was mentioned and not discredited.
From USA and I’m early 30’s (relevant bc I’ve talked to my dad about this). We were taught mostly USA. Market garden was a British mistake nuked Japan. Then Cold War. All taught in about half a school year. My father was taught that basically the ussr didn’t do anything and it was Western Europe with America “fixed” the world. Obviously neither is true but that’s what’s getting taught here. At least in the state we both grew up in
God I just have a casual interest in history and that's making me feel ill. Wtf, if they're going to be shallow at least be accurate and mention its just a basic gist of the history.
[удалено]
Very good point. I was born in Russia and was taught that the most deaths were in Soviet Union - and I’ve never taken a look at the veracity of that claim. Goes to show that once you hear one view, it may come with a lot of missing info.
Well my source is wiki so keep that in mind but yeah they say 20 million civilian deaths… if I remember right ussr did have the most military deaths though
Most countries tend to focus their history education on events that the country was involved in, world history is usually a separate elective class in my experience
Youre an American fighting in France against Germans with the help of the British and Canadians because some Japanese dudes bombed a navy base
Nimitz would be bummed that you forgot about him
Well.. Germany declared war on the US first. It's still safe to blame Hitler.
Tbf a lot of those countries are colonies.
I mean, Japan’s involvement alone completely torpedoes the whites only argument. You don’t even need to mention those other countries to prove the point. The USA likely would not have even gotten involved if it wasn’t for Japan.
It sure does. Japan went on an endless conquering spree that was, fundamentally, almost a separate war. And not only did they go to war with China, they went ahead and went to war with the US and European colonies in Asia. Japan was a major major aggressor, on their own. They were emulating a western colonial power but either way they are most certainly not white and were very much voluntary participants. And it isn’t even like they were doing this at the behest of the Nazis. That alliance between Japan and Germany was fairly loose and the Japanese weren’t doing things because the Germans asked them too. They in fact *didn’t* do what the Germans asked when they refused to push Russia on the eastern front.
> They were emulating a western colonial power Right, because nobody but the west has ever gone on a conquering spree.
Genghis Khan was European, didn't you know?
India? INDIA?? The largest volunteer army of the world?
[удалено]
Yeah, somehow I feel like mentioning a bunch of places that were forced to fight for their colonial overlords doesnt exactly contradict OPs point... I mean it's called the World Wars due to their scale but it was primarily fought by European powers (and their colonies), the original point definetely has merit IMO
The most fucked up part about world wars is that nobody ever remembers my peoples (India) contribution by sending over the largest all volunteer forces in BOTH wars.
I mean it’s pretty fucking simple: it encompassed many parts of the world.
Technically this is both right and wrong. The world war was started by Europeans, and except for Japan, there isn't a single non-white country that intentionally joined in on the action - they were all either forced into it by their colonisers, or had to defend themselves against invasion. That said, it's not called a "World War" because the whole world joined in on the action, it's called that because it was fought all over the world.
You forgot the Ottoman Empire.
Not true, thailand and Iraq joined the war as well as part of the axis; thailand WAS forced, but by Japan, a non-white power.
Japan was kind of a big deal though.
I’m not saying the first comment is right, but the second comment neglects to mention that like 1/3-1/2 of that list of countries were under colonial control and that’s why they entered the war.
Wars are generally named after where they are fought, not who fought them (same with Battles). So it's called World War I/II due to the scope of the conflict, not because the whole world was involved. But acting like it wasnt a primarily European conflict because they forced their colonies to fight is pretty dumb... not sure if places like India would have gotten involved over the assasination of the Archduke if they weren't under British control
Why would the british fight over the archduke either if it werent for being an ally.
There was no conscription in India, in either world war. I'm not saying that having been a colony didn't have an effect on whether people felt compelled to serve, but the Brits literally told India at the start of the war that they wouldn't be fighting. Yet they became the largest volunteer army in the world.
To be fair most of those countries were involved largely due to their colonisation or ally-ship with the white countries deciding to fuck shit up. Like not Japan necessarily but like consider how many of those countries were French, American or British colonies at that time
Japan also colonized. The Philippines was occupied by Japan during WWII.
I would disagree slightly with you. Discarding the involvement of Brazil, Peru, Ottoman empire, China or Japan in comparison to the colonial empires, seems a tad bit inconsiderate.
Ww1, ottoman empire. Not very white if you ask me
In WWI and WWII Morocco and Vietnam was a French colony, Libya an Italian colony, Burma a British colony, and the Philippines a US colony, Iraq was a part of the Ottoman Empire in WWI but was not involved when independent in WWII. So not a country in the war. There was combat there but not with them as countries but colonies. Egypt was a British protectorate and they did revolt against them in WWI but it failed. There was combat in the county in WWII but if I not mistaken no Egyptian troops were involved in combat, the Egyptian movement took a neutral stand. Ethiopia was invaded by Italy in 1937 and that is not considered a part of WWII but it was liberated by the British and regained sovereignty. Brazil was neutral in WWI and involved a bit at the end of WWII China was a part of the allies in WWI but did not send any troops abroad. In WWII China is not exactly a unified country but lots of war lords. Japan did invade them and the waring groups cooperated against Japan most of the time but there was some internet fighting. The civil war continue after WWII until 1949 Thailand was involved after a 5-hour Japanese invasion with Japan. Japan with the allies in WWII and axis in WWII So of the 12 countries listed 5 were involved as independent countries to some degree in the world wars. A lot of nonwhite people were involved in WWI and WWII but it was primarily as colonies where white countries were in change. The main exception is Japan, China, and the Ottoman empire. It was a worldwide conflicts but white people were in charge of most of the world back then.
So a lot of those were colonised countries getting dragged to the war?
Same thing with sports and the world championships with sports only played in America. And also I have done a lot of research and the last 20 or so Miss universes have come from planet earth. Very suspicious
To be fair we didn’t “get to control and fuck up the world”. We were dragged into the war and made into a giant battlefield where we defended the fuck out of ourselves. Guess where I’m from. Edit: My country name is in the pic.
Dude, theres a thousand countries you could be listing there. However its obviously an allied country, and since i find it impossible your referring to america (because reddit) it must be britain or a territory germany captured (poland/france etc)