What’s your take on nationalism in novels?

[BearlyAlive]

The isekai MC looking for rice or soy sauce in another world is such a cliche

But on the other hand I can somehow understand it, it would be another cliche but as a french guy if I'm transported to another world the first thing that I would miss would be food lmao so I can't really blame them for their quest of holy rice

Nothing against missing your home cuisine, I'd do the same, but propaganding other foods as bad in contrast to your oh so surperior foods that everyone instantly loves and that's so good it either causes or prevents wars is just too stupid.

 

[NobleTalon]

Nothing against missing your home cuisine, I'd do the same, but propaganding other foods as bad in contrast to your oh so surperior foods that everyone instantly loves and that's so good it either causes or prevents wars is just too stupid.

Yeah that's true, even tho I've never read a novel where the MC is going into war to get food lmao

I would find it rather funny tbh

Stupid, but funny.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

You don't have to go that far, just look at your typical Hollywood movie or mainstream game. Take a look at any Transformer movie and you'll see the US military in all its might helping beat freaking space robots, or this move U-571: Battle of the Atlantic in which the Americans take the credit from the British for stealing the Enigma machines to break the code, or even better, that Call of Duty Modern Warfare game in which they pin that "Highway of Death" war crime on the Russians when it was actually done by the US (albeit on accident) in the first Gulf War, or my favorite, that US won WW2 all by themselves. Most if not all American war movies of the time were guilty of that until Platoon started the trend for anti-war movies, which become insanely popular for a reason. Don't take me wrong! I don't have anything against the US, but come on, Hollywood propaganda is obnoxious especially when you have read something about history., the same goes for the Russians' WW2 films, everyone knows that only the Nazis were guilty of war crimes (sarcasm). The Chinese aren't the only ones flooding us with propaganda.

The Starship Troopers movie is so beloved because it parodies the whole fascist propaganda film to hell and back, even if you miss all the social-political commentary and message, is still a goddamn good action flick.

I forgot to respond to this way back, but The Brits and Muricans wouldn't have been able to launch their D-Day invasion if the Russians hadn't won the Battle of Stalingrad. The Nazi losses at Stalingrad temporarily crippled the Nazi manpower reserves in the Western (French) Theater which kept their resources in Normandy limited and their field armies understrength. I can't begin to imagine how things might have changed had the Soviets not been so determined to hold Stalingrad at all costs.

 

[NobleTalon]

I forgot to respond to this way back, but The Brits and Muricans wouldn't have been able to launch their D-Day invasion if the Russians hadn't won the Battle of Stalingrad. The Nazi losses at Stalingrad temporarily crippled the Nazi manpower reserves in the Western (French) Theater which kept their resources in Normandy limited and their field armies understrength. I can't begin to imagine how things might have changed had the Soviets not been so determined to hold Stalingrad at all costs.

The soviets carried their team.

They almost solo won the ww2, from 1943 the nazi resources and their military might was already almost depleted.

Joke aside, many serious historians believe that the power balance between the nazis and allied forces was strongly in favor of the nazis from 39 to 41, was somehow equal in the first half of 42, and started to be reversed in the favor of the allied forces from the end of 42.

They believe that the nazis already theoretically lost the war in 1943, and if they survived two more years it was mainly because they had enough forces in reserve to just slow down their fall. Without the Soviets offensives the allied forces would have been incapable of invading, or if they did they would have lost many more soldiers. (and they already lost a lot)

As for the US involvement in the ww2, people tend to forget that until pearl harbor they kept a neutral stance and they even sided with some nazis officers and factories for their own benefits. They even kept their economical contracts with Germany until the last moment and they were not a real part of the allied forces before pearl harbor, they just economically helped the UK.

If we remove the political thoughts, it's hard to reproach the US higher-ups to do their best for their country's benefit. But when you see how they try to bend history to their advantage, by acting like the nice guys in anything related to WW2, it's kinda disgusting imo.

The two real winners of the WW2 are the Soviets and the British, and both of them had huge losses. The Soviets rolled down on the eastern front and reached berlin before anyone else and the British always fought and never gave up, even where they stood alone against the Luftwaffe after Paris fell and France lost, they didn't bend.

As a french myself, even tho we like to make jokes about the British, I think that all of us have a profound respect for them and we are grateful for what they did during WW2.

Especially to Churchill, even tho he wasn't perfect he is still the one who granted asylum to General DeGaulle who is a national hero here. DeGaulle made a radio call from London and regrouped all the remaining dispersed French forces and colonial armies around the world to continue the fight against the nazis and the Vichy regime (occupied french regime).

He made the Resistance in occupied France possible, thanks to that they could bomb nazis facilities in France and the Resistance made sabotage, gave intel to London, saved the life of many RAF pilots and more importantly made the D-day possible.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

As for the US involvement in the ww2, people tend to forget that until pearl harbor they kept a neutral stance and they even sided with some nazis officers and factories for their own benefits. They even kept their economical contracts with Germany until the last moment and they were not a real part of the allied forces before pearl harbor, they just economically helped the UK.

2/3 of all American resources put into ww2 were used in the Pacific War against the Empire of Japan so yeah, D-Day was our biggest contribution overall for the European theater, anything else was just a lengthy joint operation with the British and by extension, the Soviets. Most people also give America most credit for North Africa and Italy in ww2, but the Brits had tens of thousands of their troops in these areas too. Plus, it was Italy. Italy didn't even take Italy seriously in ww2. The only real nasty fighting to happen in Italy was the fighting in Sicily and around Naples, (for some reason). Once Naples fell, Italy only halfheartedly continued.

North Africa was worse than Italy. Rommel, if he had been given more resources to work with, might have tossed the Brits and Americans both out of Africa altogether.

 

[NobleTalon]

2/3 of all American resources put into ww2 were used in the Pacific War against the Empire of Japan

It was from december 41 and the US took the advantage only from august 43 and definitely were about to end the war from 44 because japan was already exhausted, had poor logistics, and lost many important ships especially their carriers. The whole Japanese strategy was to rely on their carriers with a massive amount of planes and to use their extreme attack range compared to the classic ballistic weapons on destroyers.

(that is thanks to imperial japan that the modern navy rely on aircraft carrier now btw)

The atomic bomb was still a huge mistake imo, they already won the war and japan couldn't have been able to defend itself anymore. Even if it was tactically a good move to end the war with such a big impact as new weapon capable of wiping a city off the map, strategically it just allowed the later nuclear weapons race during cold war

The US waited 2 years and they had to see their fleet sunk by some angry japs to finally cut their relations with Germany. In theory, USA wasn't an ally until 2 years after the beginning of WW2 and they couldn't be considered a major factor of nazis downfall. They won against japan, but it's the UK and USSR who won against nazis, especially the soviets.

 

[Bartun]

I forgot to respond to this way back, but The Brits and Muricans wouldn't have been able to launch their D-Day invasion if the Russians hadn't won the Battle of Stalingrad. The Nazi losses at Stalingrad temporarily crippled the Nazi manpower reserves in the Western (French) Theater which kept their resources in Normandy limited and their field armies understrength. I can't begin to imagine how things might have changed had the Soviets not been so determined to hold Stalingrad at all costs.

Yeah, the allies would have had a rough time without the soviets, which is always downplayed in most movies. I understand Hollywood needs to take some liberties for the sake of drama, but there is a line between dramatic embellishment and downright rewriting history.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

The atomic bomb was still a huge mistake imo, they already won the war and japan couldn't have been able to defend itself anymore. Even if it was tactically a good move to end the war with such a big impact as new weapon capable of wiping a city off the map, strategically it just allowed the later nuclear weapons race during cold war

The use of nuclear weapons was okayed due to the fact that the Japanese wouldn't surrender even after the loss of the Ryukyu Islands and the fact that the US now controlled even the oceans and seas AROUND Japan. The Japanese had no navy worth the name left and the U.S. was ready and prepared to invade their homeland itself, and the Japanese still refused to surrender. The calculated losses they believed American troops would suffer to occupy the Japanese homeland were deemed unacceptable and so they needed a haymaker to lay them out for good with minimal losses.

Hence the nuclear bombs. It was inevitable that someone would have developed nuclear weapons. If it wasn't the Americans, it would have been the Nazi's.

It wouldn't have been Russia since they didn't learn of the existence of such technology or potential until mid 1945 and had no infrastructure prepared for such a scientific undertaking. Most believe if not the U.S., or Germany, it might've been the U.K. who developed them and they would have hit Berlin with a nuclear strike the moment a bomb was completed. Nuclear weapons were inevitable.

Also, forgot to mention that U.S. also was present in China during ww2. We funneled shitloads of food, ammunition, and other resources to help them fight Japan too. the Second Sino-Japanese War, which is what the war of China against Japan from 38 to 45 was called, was also pretty nasty.

Anyway, yeah I know it was British and Soviets that did the most damage to the Nazi's, you keep repeating that and I keep agreeing. Lol are you not seeing that?

 

[TheHelpfulFawn]

Discount's been saying Tony has been targeting him specifically for over a year now. I've started to believe him lately. He'll get into arguments with people, but only his comments get deleted. This here wasn't one of the better examples, but a small example nonetheless.

"Koreans are the bitchboys of East Asia. North Korea only exists because it strokes a Chinese dick. South Korea exists because Americans happen to like you and need a counterweight against North Korea and China. Otherwise, you'd be licking a Japanese or Chinese boot right about now. And remember, North Korea was spanking that South Korean ass before Americans stepped in."

You really think that this is okay to say in any context? I can say after calming down over a few days that I was in the wrong with what I said initially and afterwards, but this was way out of line. What he said is basically the equivalent to saying that the Native-American are a bunch of bitches because Andrew Jackson made them walk the Trail of Tears. Was I being an asshole with my comments? Yes, I was. But what he was spewing was and is pure racism. If his posts are getting taken down because of similar reasons then he deserves it.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

You really think that this is okay to say in any context? I can say after calming down over a few days that I was in the wrong with what I said initially and afterwards, but this was way out of line. What he said is basically the equivalent to saying that the Native-American are a bunch of bitches because Andrew Jackson made them walk the Trail of Tears. Was I being an asshole with my comments? Yes, I was. But what he was spewing was and is pure racism. If his posts are getting taken down because of similar reasons then he deserves it.

Oh please jump right off a cliff into hell with your wannabe "my social justice ism" nonsense if you don't mind. Regardless of how unpleasant is sounds, it's true. Koreans are the weakest links of East Asia, the North does survive on Chinese generosity and the South does only exist because the USA helped it survive the north. And historically, Koreans have been force fed Chinese and Japanese boots. And I'm Cherokee bud, a Native American, the ones directly affected by Andrew Jacksons Trail of Tears, and guess what? We did get our asses beat.

And racism? How? He didn't say he hated Koreans. He just said they have been the punching bags of East Asia, though in more colorful language. Don't like it? Too bad. History doesn't care about your feelings. If you are going to call someone racist, at least get it right.

Another "muh racism" loser in the forums reeeeing because someone hurt his poor pitiful feelings. Sad, sad days.

 

[Tony]

...and this is why we can't have nice things.