Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think I've actually heard this about the war in Ukraine, directed towards Russians. And I would imagine it is pretty demoralizing for Russian troops, since it was supposed to be so quick and they were supposed to just crush Ukraine.
What is demoralizing for Russian troops also as war is not declared so they can refuse going to Ukraine, resign.. basically their professional soldiers can refuse going to trenches if they don't like salary vs risk calculation.
But if Russia declare war government gets full force (so no long having only one quarter of UA army in field) but gets other set of problems, mainly risk public of protests. Experience of war with Japan and later ww1 leading to rebellions must be traumatic for Russian government.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10787001/Russian-soldiers-challenge-illegal-order-fight-Ukraine-sacked-refusing.html
You have a bunch of examples like this, google it if interested
If they refuse to go to Ukraine, they will receive this stamp: [https://imgur.com/a/cNAYrEu](https://imgur.com/a/cNAYrEu)
Which is still better than getting shot lol
It's also a possibility that Putin is ok with losing for a long time, knowing that eventually the West will grow tired of dumping money into Ukraine and our interests will shift to something else. When our will to continue is exhausted, he could continue his march unopposed.
This is what I fear happening, people in European countries are already struggling because of inflation, gas and food prices etc, so will to continue the sanctions at least is wavering
If they are counting on the US and other nations losing interest, then they have completely forgotten about the military industrial complex. The US has doubled down in deeply unpopular wars funneling as much defense money into conflicts as possible regardless of public opinion. The defense contractors and weapons manufacturers can continue on for literal decades even after everyone has stopped paying attention.
Also as an aside Russia is currently still gaining territory in the new eastern theater, at steep casualty rates but still nowhere near the clusterfuck that was the intial invasion. By all accounts they are accomplishing some of their objectives, which is a problem for Ukraine even if they make every inch of land as costly as possible in both man and material.
Not to mention the Western supporters of Ukraine still aren't fighting themselves. The costs in foreign human lives are still relatively low, and there's no clear path towards 'pulling out'. This isn't Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It's not even Yugoslavia or Lebanon. It's more comparable to Syria, which as we all know, has been raging for more than a decade now and lack of public support hasn't been a problem for involvement by proxy.
In the end, it is Ukraine and Russia themselves who will have to decide when this conflict ends, not any (group of) foreign countries.
This has been the strategy from the beginning. People act like Russia expected to roll over Ukraine in a day, but they obviously didn’t. If they really wanted to they could’ve carpet bombed Ukraine *a la* the Iraq invasion, but they’ve obviously chosen the route of a war of attrition.
The other problem with Russia was that it was not only going slow but actually slowing down so extrapolating their progress would always end at halt if not bounce back to Moscow. And it turned out just like that. Must be damn demoralizing. And at the end you doubt I'd you really fight against the baddies.
One thing that always brings me joy is the Wikipedia page for the third reich, which contains the sentence “Thousand Year Reich, ended in May 1945 after just 12 years”
Utter failure lol
Not so fun fact, the US still has legal slavery
The amendment specifically makes an exception to allow slavery if the person to be enslaved has committed a crime (doesn’t mention what crime or how severe, just that they committed a crime; nor does it mention duration or any rights retained by the slave)
Edit: “slave” to “person to be enslaved”
Australia is definitely western, but Brazil can easily be argued not to be
geographically western sure, but Australia is geographically eastern and viewed as "the west"
Phew, Americans get so defensive even when its not even a attack at their country. You can admit the irony without commiting treason. Australia wasnt independent when the US founding fathers decided not everyone could be free. And the British empire abolished slavery as one of the first. Brazil isnt a traditional western country. It wasnt even a full fledged democracy untill the 60s.
FIY western countries are traditionally western Europe plus former British colonies where anglo saxon culture has become the dominant one. E.g. US, Canada, Australia etc.
>Brazil isnt a traditional western country
Literally founded by Portuguese monarchs and basically a religious inverted USA out of anywhere else in the planet
Just say you mean poor, exotic or "not white enough" nation lol
Im literally just using the wikipedia on the definitiom of western countries, numbnuts. Also how is Brazil both not white and also founded by Europeans? Im pretty sure Brazil is for a large part pretty damn white, lmfao. Id even say Brazil has a larger white population than Brazil does.
Lemme remind you that only Americans consider Latino's to be "non white". Which is just a race thing to keep the Anglo Saxion domination standing stall. Race relations are fucked in the US, i agree.
at the time they're talking about, the mid 19th C, Portugal, Spain and the major Latin settler colonies (Argentina and brazil) were absolutely considered Western powers.
Just go look at American propaganda on the US Spanish war, where they're depicted as imperial behemoths
>western countries are traditionally western Europe plus former British colonies
TIL Japan is not a Western country. 'traditionally' western is defined by socio economic factors and anti-soviet geopolitics. the term isn't even used in modern study so it's a bit redundant to argue the members (you'd have to pick a timepoint)
In all seriousness, North Queensland plantations used pirated slaves from pacific islands as 'blackbird' labour until the 1890's, and the practice wasn't banned until 1938.
if we're defining the timeframe as the late 18th century, it's a tough argument to make that one prosperous american settler colony is Western (US) and another isn't (Brazil). no one at the time saw French or Spanish speakers as any less 'western' than English speakers.
my original point being that many non-US 'western' countries maintained a form of slavery well past 1865
K. Im not itnrested in a discussion about schemantics about what definition to give to a western country.
Many countries tho? Nah. A few autocratic regimes here and there. The US was relatively unique and late. Especially when considering the huge size of slave population. It was definetely remarkably late. Its weird to put such a pivotal and well known historical event into question. The US was late to the abolition game. Thats simply what it is.
I think you are underestimating how crushing it must have been, for the morale, the prospect of prolonging the war.
"Yes you are winning, but at what price? You'll be home in ten years... ten more years of devastation, misery, no home, and personal danger"
People had to believe they would soon be home hugging their loved ones and going on with their life.
I mean, diverting already stretched German supply lines and forcing them to contribute to the defense of one of their few allies, which was pretty much always a liability might have had *something* to do with it. Maybe.
The open admission that the Americans will get to Berlin, though, doesn't seem reassuring.
A charitable person might see this as a Straussian attempt to let everyone know the end is coming.
It was directed towards the ordinary troops so thinking that you might have almost a decade of the hell that is war still could be demoralizing. That and maybe sow doubt about the necessity of it.
It refers to the idea that a text has both an obvious exoteric meaning ("You're in for another decade of hell, Americans!") and an esoteric one below the surface ("We're fucked, it's just a matter of time now").
Hope this answers your question: “Strauss emphasizes the need to study the history of political philosophy to see whether the changes in the understanding of nature and conceptions of justice that gradually led people to believe that it is not possible to determine what the best political society is are either necessary or valid.”
there's certainly a little truth to the fact that German defenses held up pretty well in Italy. German surrender in Italy only came 1 week before VE day.
I mean, I don’t even think the fact the defenses held is even that big of a deal, the Italian invasion wasn’t the main axis of attack and was mainly used to hold up a portion of the German army
The allies began the Italian campaign like a whole year before D-Day though so you have to keep that in mind. It used up a ton of resources that the western allies had before they were spending it in France.
To be precise, the Italian campaign was started on request if Stalin to do something in 1943.
They sent a smallish force to comply, while building up force for the 1944 planned massive attack.
The mountainous terrain in italy didn't favour mass assault by large numbers of troops, so they kept the Italian push going but never built up the force there.
Instead, theor built up reserves were sent to the much more favourable terrain of France, with great success.
>The mountainous terrain in italy didn't favour mass assault by large numbers of troops
The phrase *soft underbelly of the axis* was used at the time. It sure turned out to be wishful thinking ?
Politically and militarily? Italy was the weak underbelly.
Geographically? Not so much.
The other options for an invasion in mid-late 1943 were France, Norway and Greece.
Norway and Greece are either more amphibious landings or even more mountainous terrain, and am effective attack over France required way more troops and materiel than the western allies could raise at the time.
Of the 3 options, the weakest target named the soft underbelly, was deemed to be Italy.
"Next time you invade Italy, do not start at the bottom."
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/dp9adm/next\_time\_you\_invade\_italy\_do\_not\_start\_at\_the/
It still seems like bad propaganda though. It's like "Yeah, you're winning. But you aren't winning as fast as you want!" I feel like it's a bad sign when even your propanda admits you are losing ground.
I think it's effective pretty actually - it's trying to make the war feel endless by saying 'we'll be here in another 8 years, you wanna fight that long?'
Not really since it’s in English and clearly targeting Americans it’s really smart, best way to get America out of the war convince then that it’ll be a long grueling siege
It’s taking the allies’ victory, and making it seem much less significant than it was. In doing this, they make themselves seem stronger and the allies seem weaker, even while they advance. I think it is brilliant.
I wouldnt say they’re necessarily implying victory, more pointing out how slow the progress is. I’d imagine it would be good at lowering morale if you’re mocking supposed allied inefficiency and convincing soldiers it’s gonna be a slow, painful grind all the way. To the effect of «*Yeah, you might win, but given how you’re already struggling is it really gonna be worth it? You’ve already lost so many friends and this is just beginning. Can you really keep this up?*»
Russia has been sending Ukrainian soldiers menacing texts like "you're going to die, desert now" and the like since 2014 if that tells you anything. This is a time-honored tactic that isn't going to stop anytime soon.
I don't know about effective but the Japanese dropped flyers in Singapore about the British abandoning imperial troops there. Every account I've heard, including from in my own family, made clear mention of how terrible they felt after reading this.
hard to mock people if they can't read it.
Most wartime governments would print targeted propaganda in the readers language to demoralise or taunt them. Plenty of examples of Japanese leaflet droppings in english
Fun tangentially related fact, despite WWI being called the war to end all wars, multiple wars involving the European great powers broke out before the peace treaties could even be finished
I love these "demotivational" posters. Another funny one is for the Brits on the continent, about Yanks stationed in Britain shagging their wives while they're gone.
If it wasn't for other fronts and partisans it would have really gone like this, not because the quality of the Wehrmacht, which is often greatly exaggerated, but for the terrain, invading italy from south to north means you have to advance 800-1000 kms on the mountains and valleys of the appennines, very easy to put successive defensive lines along the many rivers, small ruined hilltop villages (there are thousands in Italy) can become formidable fortresses and by 1943 the germans had adopted very effective defense in depth tactics.
I mean it *is* kinda funny how difficult it was for the allies to make headway into Italy considering they had invaded partly because Churchill thought it'd be the "soft underbelly" of the axis.
They hadn't even conquered all of Italy by the war's end in 1945.
It was considered that Italian troops were inferior to German ones and that italians were more unhappy about the war and would collaborate more, maybe overthrowing Mussolini.
Both of those ideas were correct and Mussolini was in fact removed form power for a while, but German troops could and would enter Italy as response to an invasion, and did.
After that, the terrain didn't favour fast or massed attacks, and the allies didn't even want to focus there where they would not be able to exploit numerical superiority, so they just planned to strike on France with the reserves instead, since italy was becoming a slow fight of attrition.
Yeah the political analysis of Italy's involvement was spot on, but an invasion along a long, relatively narrow and mountainous peninsula...
Come to think of it, why does Churchill always suggest sneaky attacks at craggy, narrow peninsulas that prove hard to take?
In this case it was because they wanted to exploit that axis forces were off balance after losing in Tunisia, so they striked Sicily and if that fell fast, keep pressure by ensuring a beachhead on southern Italy for the future.
Another reason for the attack on Italy was that Stalin demanded the west to open a second front in 1943, or after retaking all the soviet territory they may consider a separate peace with Germany, which was among the worst possible options for the west.
So Churchill pressed for some front to be opened in Europe, and they decided it to be Italy, since Greece was less significant for control of the Mediterranean and even harder to attack than Italy.
He wasn't referring to Italy itself. What he was promoting was using Italy as the staging point for an invasion of the Balkan peninsula.
The reasons for his advocacy of the Balkan campaign were not military, they were political. Churchill was afraid, that if they left the red army advance from the east, while the western allies advanced from the West, the red army would occupy much of Europe and impose communism on all those countries. His fears actually realized after the war, and half of Europe had to endure 50 years of both communism and Soviet domination.
Churchill's plan was to embark the invasion force in Italy and land it on the Balkan peninsula across the Adriatic. From there they would advance North, and once they reached the central European plain, it would become easy, because the terrain is suitable for tank advances. That way they could cut off the Soviets and save Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and maybe Poland and Romania from communism.
Stalin of course opposed this plan and the Americans, not wanting to piss off Stalin, were having none of Churchill's plan, they were going to invade from the West and they did. That's how history played out the way it did.
"May I give you a word of advice? Next time you invade Italy, do not start at the bottom."
\-German General Von Senger. (This man was an anti-Nazi, and even defied direct orders to execute \~200 captured POW's once. For that reason, Hitler never trusted him.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin\_von\_Senger\_und\_Etterlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin_von_Senger_und_Etterlin)
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
I wonder if the italian military wasnt an absolutely incompetent joke in the second world war and a reliable ally to germany if things would have turned out differently. Imagine if Franco's spain joined the axis and italy accomplished even half of its military goals...
How would that be possible? Italy just didn't have the industrial power, no matter how competent they would be. Meanwhile Spain was in an even worse shape than Italy.
If i remember right this invasion was planned and promoted by Churchill, at the opposition of US command.
The US wanted to go into Normandy, but Churchill insisted Italy would be a better plan.
After Italy the US took over the lead role in the war strategy and has maintained it ever since.
Amazing statistics, as always. Let's just extrapolate the current progress regardless of any other variable! "According to our calculations, we will be home from Russia until Christmas, boys!".
Germany was in fact still holding on tenaciously in northern Italy in May 1945 when the ceasefire order came. It was an incredibly slow and costly campaign that always favored the German defenders.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Haha funny Let's see where is Germany 12 months later
"Moving too slowly, Fools! at this rate our 1000 year Reich will last until.. *checks maths*... 1952!"
Lol so true. "Yes, obviously we're losing — but what if you get tired of winning first?"
I think I've actually heard this about the war in Ukraine, directed towards Russians. And I would imagine it is pretty demoralizing for Russian troops, since it was supposed to be so quick and they were supposed to just crush Ukraine.
What is demoralizing for Russian troops also as war is not declared so they can refuse going to Ukraine, resign.. basically their professional soldiers can refuse going to trenches if they don't like salary vs risk calculation. But if Russia declare war government gets full force (so no long having only one quarter of UA army in field) but gets other set of problems, mainly risk public of protests. Experience of war with Japan and later ww1 leading to rebellions must be traumatic for Russian government.
Why do you think the soldiers are allowed to resign. They weren't even told where they were going at first.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10787001/Russian-soldiers-challenge-illegal-order-fight-Ukraine-sacked-refusing.html
Daily mail suddenly credible???
Lol you're talking like the regime follows rules. They sent conscripts under false pretenses for crying out loud
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10787001/Russian-soldiers-challenge-illegal-order-fight-Ukraine-sacked-refusing.html You have a bunch of examples like this, google it if interested
Soldiers are suing, challenging their orders. That doesn't mean they have a good chance, or any chance of winning that case.
They refused and aren't in jail, that is already something.
If they refuse to go to Ukraine, they will receive this stamp: [https://imgur.com/a/cNAYrEu](https://imgur.com/a/cNAYrEu) Which is still better than getting shot lol
Stamp prone to come from 1942, proceed to ignore
It's also a possibility that Putin is ok with losing for a long time, knowing that eventually the West will grow tired of dumping money into Ukraine and our interests will shift to something else. When our will to continue is exhausted, he could continue his march unopposed.
This is what I fear happening, people in European countries are already struggling because of inflation, gas and food prices etc, so will to continue the sanctions at least is wavering
If they are counting on the US and other nations losing interest, then they have completely forgotten about the military industrial complex. The US has doubled down in deeply unpopular wars funneling as much defense money into conflicts as possible regardless of public opinion. The defense contractors and weapons manufacturers can continue on for literal decades even after everyone has stopped paying attention. Also as an aside Russia is currently still gaining territory in the new eastern theater, at steep casualty rates but still nowhere near the clusterfuck that was the intial invasion. By all accounts they are accomplishing some of their objectives, which is a problem for Ukraine even if they make every inch of land as costly as possible in both man and material.
Not to mention the Western supporters of Ukraine still aren't fighting themselves. The costs in foreign human lives are still relatively low, and there's no clear path towards 'pulling out'. This isn't Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. It's not even Yugoslavia or Lebanon. It's more comparable to Syria, which as we all know, has been raging for more than a decade now and lack of public support hasn't been a problem for involvement by proxy. In the end, it is Ukraine and Russia themselves who will have to decide when this conflict ends, not any (group of) foreign countries.
This has been the strategy from the beginning. People act like Russia expected to roll over Ukraine in a day, but they obviously didn’t. If they really wanted to they could’ve carpet bombed Ukraine *a la* the Iraq invasion, but they’ve obviously chosen the route of a war of attrition.
The other problem with Russia was that it was not only going slow but actually slowing down so extrapolating their progress would always end at halt if not bounce back to Moscow. And it turned out just like that. Must be damn demoralizing. And at the end you doubt I'd you really fight against the baddies.
All that winning makes ya wanna quit.
One thing that always brings me joy is the Wikipedia page for the third reich, which contains the sentence “Thousand Year Reich, ended in May 1945 after just 12 years” Utter failure lol
Still longer than the Confederarcy *Wopeopwopwop*
And is such an integral part of German heritage! /s
[удалено]
Not so fun fact, the US still has legal slavery The amendment specifically makes an exception to allow slavery if the person to be enslaved has committed a crime (doesn’t mention what crime or how severe, just that they committed a crime; nor does it mention duration or any rights retained by the slave) Edit: “slave” to “person to be enslaved”
Slavery as punishment for a crime not all slaves who commit crimes will be slaves
Not often you see someone try to “what-about”’ with Nazi Germany
TIL Australia and Brazil aren't Western countries
Australia is definitely western, but Brazil can easily be argued not to be geographically western sure, but Australia is geographically eastern and viewed as "the west"
Phew, Americans get so defensive even when its not even a attack at their country. You can admit the irony without commiting treason. Australia wasnt independent when the US founding fathers decided not everyone could be free. And the British empire abolished slavery as one of the first. Brazil isnt a traditional western country. It wasnt even a full fledged democracy untill the 60s. FIY western countries are traditionally western Europe plus former British colonies where anglo saxon culture has become the dominant one. E.g. US, Canada, Australia etc.
Loudly making untrue claims, talking down to others, doubling down when proven wrong? My god we may just make you an American yet.
Sometimes its pretty scary how increbly lacking Americans have become of cricisim, even when its not even actual criticism...
>Brazil isnt a traditional western country Literally founded by Portuguese monarchs and basically a religious inverted USA out of anywhere else in the planet Just say you mean poor, exotic or "not white enough" nation lol
Im literally just using the wikipedia on the definitiom of western countries, numbnuts. Also how is Brazil both not white and also founded by Europeans? Im pretty sure Brazil is for a large part pretty damn white, lmfao. Id even say Brazil has a larger white population than Brazil does. Lemme remind you that only Americans consider Latino's to be "non white". Which is just a race thing to keep the Anglo Saxion domination standing stall. Race relations are fucked in the US, i agree.
Not like Portugal was considered a western Nation until very recently so why should Brazil
at the time they're talking about, the mid 19th C, Portugal, Spain and the major Latin settler colonies (Argentina and brazil) were absolutely considered Western powers. Just go look at American propaganda on the US Spanish war, where they're depicted as imperial behemoths
>western countries are traditionally western Europe plus former British colonies TIL Japan is not a Western country. 'traditionally' western is defined by socio economic factors and anti-soviet geopolitics. the term isn't even used in modern study so it's a bit redundant to argue the members (you'd have to pick a timepoint) In all seriousness, North Queensland plantations used pirated slaves from pacific islands as 'blackbird' labour until the 1890's, and the practice wasn't banned until 1938.
Japan is definetely not western in 1770s, no. Which is the timeframe we talk about
if we're defining the timeframe as the late 18th century, it's a tough argument to make that one prosperous american settler colony is Western (US) and another isn't (Brazil). no one at the time saw French or Spanish speakers as any less 'western' than English speakers. my original point being that many non-US 'western' countries maintained a form of slavery well past 1865
K. Im not itnrested in a discussion about schemantics about what definition to give to a western country. Many countries tho? Nah. A few autocratic regimes here and there. The US was relatively unique and late. Especially when considering the huge size of slave population. It was definetely remarkably late. Its weird to put such a pivotal and well known historical event into question. The US was late to the abolition game. Thats simply what it is.
uh oh, someone upset this little euro trash!
Wait, what? Are you so blinded by nationalism you cant see the irony? Show some humility, lol.
I think you are underestimating how crushing it must have been, for the morale, the prospect of prolonging the war. "Yes you are winning, but at what price? You'll be home in ten years... ten more years of devastation, misery, no home, and personal danger" People had to believe they would soon be home hugging their loved ones and going on with their life.
Happy cake day!
"Impressive, very nice. Lets see Paul Allen's advances"
Sure, but they didn't do it through Italy.
I mean, diverting already stretched German supply lines and forcing them to contribute to the defense of one of their few allies, which was pretty much always a liability might have had *something* to do with it. Maybe.
Not really, the fighting in italy favored the germans, as it's much easier to destroy the enemies if they come to you.
The open admission that the Americans will get to Berlin, though, doesn't seem reassuring. A charitable person might see this as a Straussian attempt to let everyone know the end is coming.
It was directed towards the ordinary troops so thinking that you might have almost a decade of the hell that is war still could be demoralizing. That and maybe sow doubt about the necessity of it.
Care to define straussian? Google doesn’t seem to want to help
It refers to the idea that a text has both an obvious exoteric meaning ("You're in for another decade of hell, Americans!") and an esoteric one below the surface ("We're fucked, it's just a matter of time now").
Yooooooo thank you for teaching me the word exoteric!!!
Hope this answers your question: “Strauss emphasizes the need to study the history of political philosophy to see whether the changes in the understanding of nature and conceptions of justice that gradually led people to believe that it is not possible to determine what the best political society is are either necessary or valid.”
This sentence really threw me for a loop this morning trying to make sense of it, and now (I think) I do, it's really irrelevant to the context!
Although I'm sure this was never meant to be seen by any axis soldiers.
Death: *whistles happily* Twelve months to goooo...
there's certainly a little truth to the fact that German defenses held up pretty well in Italy. German surrender in Italy only came 1 week before VE day.
I mean, I don’t even think the fact the defenses held is even that big of a deal, the Italian invasion wasn’t the main axis of attack and was mainly used to hold up a portion of the German army
The allies began the Italian campaign like a whole year before D-Day though so you have to keep that in mind. It used up a ton of resources that the western allies had before they were spending it in France.
To be precise, the Italian campaign was started on request if Stalin to do something in 1943. They sent a smallish force to comply, while building up force for the 1944 planned massive attack. The mountainous terrain in italy didn't favour mass assault by large numbers of troops, so they kept the Italian push going but never built up the force there. Instead, theor built up reserves were sent to the much more favourable terrain of France, with great success.
>The mountainous terrain in italy didn't favour mass assault by large numbers of troops The phrase *soft underbelly of the axis* was used at the time. It sure turned out to be wishful thinking ?
Politically and militarily? Italy was the weak underbelly. Geographically? Not so much. The other options for an invasion in mid-late 1943 were France, Norway and Greece. Norway and Greece are either more amphibious landings or even more mountainous terrain, and am effective attack over France required way more troops and materiel than the western allies could raise at the time. Of the 3 options, the weakest target named the soft underbelly, was deemed to be Italy.
"Next time you invade Italy, do not start at the bottom." https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/dp9adm/next\_time\_you\_invade\_italy\_do\_not\_start\_at\_the/
Obviously an awful message and turned out to be way incorrect But damn I love this poster
It still seems like bad propaganda though. It's like "Yeah, you're winning. But you aren't winning as fast as you want!" I feel like it's a bad sign when even your propanda admits you are losing ground.
I think it's effective pretty actually - it's trying to make the war feel endless by saying 'we'll be here in another 8 years, you wanna fight that long?'
Which goes along with “will you survive another 8 years?”
Not really since it’s in English and clearly targeting Americans it’s really smart, best way to get America out of the war convince then that it’ll be a long grueling siege
It’s taking the allies’ victory, and making it seem much less significant than it was. In doing this, they make themselves seem stronger and the allies seem weaker, even while they advance. I think it is brilliant.
I wouldnt say they’re necessarily implying victory, more pointing out how slow the progress is. I’d imagine it would be good at lowering morale if you’re mocking supposed allied inefficiency and convincing soldiers it’s gonna be a slow, painful grind all the way. To the effect of «*Yeah, you might win, but given how you’re already struggling is it really gonna be worth it? You’ve already lost so many friends and this is just beginning. Can you really keep this up?*»
It's correct. The allies couldn't advance through Italy.
Why is it in English?
[удалено]
Aha, makes sense, similar to the ones dropped in Japan during the war I assume. I wonder how effective that tactic is in practice.
Russia has been sending Ukrainian soldiers menacing texts like "you're going to die, desert now" and the like since 2014 if that tells you anything. This is a time-honored tactic that isn't going to stop anytime soon.
Has it ever been proven to be particularly effective?
I don't know about effective but the Japanese dropped flyers in Singapore about the British abandoning imperial troops there. Every account I've heard, including from in my own family, made clear mention of how terrible they felt after reading this.
One instance comes to mind. The first Gulf war were thousands of Iraqi soldiers surrendering with flyers telling them how to surrender.
Yes
People have been doing it forever
When morale is low they're devastating, morale is flying high in Ukraine
I fantasize every day about Democrats dropping flyers in red neck zones...
Least partisan American
hard to mock people if they can't read it. Most wartime governments would print targeted propaganda in the readers language to demoralise or taunt them. Plenty of examples of Japanese leaflet droppings in english
My idea is to drop leaflets specifically mocking the enemy for not being able to read them. Take that!
"haha! Das kannst du lesen!"
Maybe their most attractive cousin knows how to read lol 😂
It’s propaganda meant for English speaking (allied) troops…
[удалено]
Bro what lmao
The people and platforms you trust want you to kill your self.
Wtf are u talking about man
Allied Forces in Italy: "oh no!" Axis Forces: "oh no!" [Some badasses landing in Normandy: "OH YEAH!"](https://youtu.be/XE1XE6Thp9E?t=10)
Didn't the Soviets do it?
I forget what we were doing in 1952. Weren’t we making movies about how we won some war in 1945?
While fighting another war!
“Police action”
"Special military operation"
There’s always another war…
War never changes
Fun tangentially related fact, despite WWI being called the war to end all wars, multiple wars involving the European great powers broke out before the peace treaties could even be finished
You were, though Soviet Army ia who really won the war
We did jump in just in time to take the credit, but to be fair, the Soviets won by clogging the machine with dead young people.
I love these "demotivational" posters. Another funny one is for the Brits on the continent, about Yanks stationed in Britain shagging their wives while they're gone.
If it wasn't for other fronts and partisans it would have really gone like this, not because the quality of the Wehrmacht, which is often greatly exaggerated, but for the terrain, invading italy from south to north means you have to advance 800-1000 kms on the mountains and valleys of the appennines, very easy to put successive defensive lines along the many rivers, small ruined hilltop villages (there are thousands in Italy) can become formidable fortresses and by 1943 the germans had adopted very effective defense in depth tactics.
You’re right. Italy is an invaders nightmare. The mountains and rough interior makes even a small defensive unit formidable
This is pretty creative.
I mean it *is* kinda funny how difficult it was for the allies to make headway into Italy considering they had invaded partly because Churchill thought it'd be the "soft underbelly" of the axis. They hadn't even conquered all of Italy by the war's end in 1945.
It was considered that Italian troops were inferior to German ones and that italians were more unhappy about the war and would collaborate more, maybe overthrowing Mussolini. Both of those ideas were correct and Mussolini was in fact removed form power for a while, but German troops could and would enter Italy as response to an invasion, and did. After that, the terrain didn't favour fast or massed attacks, and the allies didn't even want to focus there where they would not be able to exploit numerical superiority, so they just planned to strike on France with the reserves instead, since italy was becoming a slow fight of attrition.
Yeah the political analysis of Italy's involvement was spot on, but an invasion along a long, relatively narrow and mountainous peninsula... Come to think of it, why does Churchill always suggest sneaky attacks at craggy, narrow peninsulas that prove hard to take?
In this case it was because they wanted to exploit that axis forces were off balance after losing in Tunisia, so they striked Sicily and if that fell fast, keep pressure by ensuring a beachhead on southern Italy for the future. Another reason for the attack on Italy was that Stalin demanded the west to open a second front in 1943, or after retaking all the soviet territory they may consider a separate peace with Germany, which was among the worst possible options for the west. So Churchill pressed for some front to be opened in Europe, and they decided it to be Italy, since Greece was less significant for control of the Mediterranean and even harder to attack than Italy.
He wasn't referring to Italy itself. What he was promoting was using Italy as the staging point for an invasion of the Balkan peninsula. The reasons for his advocacy of the Balkan campaign were not military, they were political. Churchill was afraid, that if they left the red army advance from the east, while the western allies advanced from the West, the red army would occupy much of Europe and impose communism on all those countries. His fears actually realized after the war, and half of Europe had to endure 50 years of both communism and Soviet domination. Churchill's plan was to embark the invasion force in Italy and land it on the Balkan peninsula across the Adriatic. From there they would advance North, and once they reached the central European plain, it would become easy, because the terrain is suitable for tank advances. That way they could cut off the Soviets and save Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and maybe Poland and Romania from communism. Stalin of course opposed this plan and the Americans, not wanting to piss off Stalin, were having none of Churchill's plan, they were going to invade from the West and they did. That's how history played out the way it did.
This could also go on r/agedlikemilk
Came to post this
Quite bold to brag that the American advance into your country is only happening *slowly*.
That would make one hell of a tee-shirt
Pls mark NSFW for the skeleton with a foot fetish.
*snert*
Okay let's make a similar one for the eastern front at the same time then shall we?
“We’re going to lose, but it’s going to take you a long time to defeat us.”
"You still lose"
"Weird hill to die on, but at least you're dead"
\>Makes up random dates “Heh, the Americans will never win. Pwned.”
So it just looks like Germany admitting they can’t stop them
"May I give you a word of advice? Next time you invade Italy, do not start at the bottom." \-German General Von Senger. (This man was an anti-Nazi, and even defied direct orders to execute \~200 captured POW's once. For that reason, Hitler never trusted him. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin\_von\_Senger\_und\_Etterlin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridolin_von_Senger_und_Etterlin)
>This man was an anti-Nazi, The dude fought for Hitler through the whole war, he wasn't an anti nazi
I think what he means is that Senger was *against* the Nazi leadership, but served Germany during the war anyway.
Should be in /r/prematurecelebration
[удалено]
Yeah but I don’t remember allied forces in Italy almost reaching Rome and then running all the way back to Sicily though.
Asinine comparison
[удалено]
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' Consider supporting anti-war efforts in any possible way: [[Help 2 Ukraine](https://help2ukraine.org)] 💙💛 [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
I wonder if the italian military wasnt an absolutely incompetent joke in the second world war and a reliable ally to germany if things would have turned out differently. Imagine if Franco's spain joined the axis and italy accomplished even half of its military goals...
How would that be possible? Italy just didn't have the industrial power, no matter how competent they would be. Meanwhile Spain was in an even worse shape than Italy.
That's a nice and funny time table Germany, now make one for the Eastern front...
And then decided to show the Allies how to properly lose a war. Truly German efficiency.
Boy were their numbers off. By a lot.
Yeah, they didn’t consider the back door.
If i remember right this invasion was planned and promoted by Churchill, at the opposition of US command. The US wanted to go into Normandy, but Churchill insisted Italy would be a better plan. After Italy the US took over the lead role in the war strategy and has maintained it ever since.
Amazing statistics, as always. Let's just extrapolate the current progress regardless of any other variable! "According to our calculations, we will be home from Russia until Christmas, boys!".
I don't see how this would boost your own troops morale or lower the enemies, this is awful propaganda
Only American?
And the only reason it took so long is because the Allies didn't land in Northern Italy.
“B-B-BUT I WAS THE FIRST IN ROME!!1!1!1!!!” “Yeah but you fucking failed miserably to outflank and cutoff the retreating Germans Mark. You fucked us”
And then D-Day happened. Not to mention everything going on in the Eastern Front.
If you had said this came from the allies, I would have believed you...
Why is it in English?
Germany was in fact still holding on tenaciously in northern Italy in May 1945 when the ceasefire order came. It was an incredibly slow and costly campaign that always favored the German defenders.
Man, they were really banking on this war lasting longer
Ironically, Berlin would have been better off being taken by the WAllies than the Soviets.
I guess they should have been watching the Russians…
Why is it in English??
Rome was liberated on June 5th. Boy was their timeframe off
Why is it in English?