Why do some wars end and other wars just don't? WWII for

>>34245734
Wars rarely start conventional and go guerilla, usually a surrender is honored if no atrocities are committed post surrender

File: GUN.jpg (61KB, 400x600px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 400x600px

>>34245734
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dt_yhOidukE

>>34245734
the Military Industrial Complex took over and the entire planet is intentionally being kept in a constant state of war for the profits

>>34245734
>no German I.E.D. attacks
there was a resistance movement in Germany for a brief time. There was a resistance movement in Poland that regularly killed Russians into the 50's.

>>34245777
You mean drunken Russian soldiers got run over by APCs and killed in bar fights and ND into each other enough that some colonial decided to say he was fighting a resistance to avoid looking retarded

>>34245761
/thread

We're not going to win a war for a long time guys, its just not profitable

WW2 was a war between states. When a state surrenders, their personnel generally stand down too.
Iraq and Afghanistan were wars with non-state actors whose command structure and income were decentralized far across the world, were ideologically committed to the conflict; and were sufficiently in-cohesive that forging peace with one element would no guarantee anything with the rest of the opposing force.

>>34245755
This. Learn what guerilla warfare is, OP.

>>34245734
>Why is that?

see - jihad

piece of shite mooslimes have been waging their religious b.s. for 1400 years now

>>34245734
World War 2 didn't just end when Germany and then Japan surrendered. fighting continued on both fronts after the surrender, and some pockets of resistance went to ground and fought a gorilla war.

Many of those involved in the losing side of the war ended up being involved in terrorist organisations and paramilitary groups.

File: 1496510531713.jpg (6KB, 255x180px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 255x180px

>>34245828
>WW2 was a war between states. When a state surrenders, their personnel generally stand down too.
>Iraq and Afghanistan were wars with non-state actors whose command structure and income were decentralized far across the world, were ideologically committed to the conflict; and were sufficiently in-cohesive that forging peace with one element would no guarantee anything with the rest of the opposing force.

A ton of people died or were captured as prisoners before Germany and Japan fell. Most of the people able to fight, in fact. The countries were starved and they were bombed mercilessly into absolute misery. I think you really underestimate just how bad Germany and Japan got it during that war.

That didn't happen in the other examples.

>>34245869

There was no Japanese resistance from those who heard the order to surrender from other Japanese.

The only holdouts were psychos on islands who didn't have communication with Japan and didn't believe the Gaijin when they told them the war was over.

>>34245734
There was no interest in helping Germans attack Soviet convoys. In fact Poles and probably other nations that weren't communist before the war continued partisan warfare for a year or two after the war but were thwarted.

The problem with Iraq and Afghanistan is that American intelligence community failed to properly identify the threat. You can read about it in that Stephen Coughlin "Catastrophic failure..." book.

Afghanistan can serve for a great example of contrast too. Americans(NATO) vs. Soviets. Soviets after ~1983-1984 fought international jihadists only. The Afghans themselves were completely pacified since Soviet intelligence properly identified source of the resistance(both religiously, politically and economically motivated) and proceeded to eliminating it very brutally and very effectively. Ever since it was version of weird partisan-based Korean war where mujahedeems propped up by US, SA, China and several other countries were dumped to the country and continued to suffer enormous losses endlessly until Soviets couldn't afford to keep the intervention going anymore.

Americans came in, tried to surgically take down the "leaders" of "islamic extremists" and achieved jackshit because those leaders weren't the source of "islamic extremists", they were just "islamic extremists" that have risen to prominence. Some retards in American establishment to this day don't understand that simple fact. As such, Americans never achieved the status Soviets had when the war was halfway through.

>>34245808
No he means the ukrainian insurgent army murking tens of thousands of NKVD bolsheviks until the mid 50s

File: Vereshchagin-Blowing_from_Guns_in_British_India_smaller.jpg (33KB, 440x308px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 440x308px

>>34245734
A fight isn't over until one side admits it had enough. Conventional warfare has rules, etiquette and protocols for this sort of stuff, unconventional warfare hasn't. nobody can wage conventional warfare against the US, the only way to win is to fight an insurgency against them and hope they'll eventually get bored and leave you alone.

There is nothing new about unconventional warfare, Romans sued to deal with rebellions and insurgencies all the time too.

What has changed is that we don't have the will to do what it takes to win them : retaliate by razing the nearest village where you found an IED, execute rebels, displace, enslave or genocide entire populations.

Ask yourself the the Romans or even the British Empire would have dealt with the same situation. Insurgents are no threat, those wars are going to last as long as we care to pay for them to continue.

Modern weak politicians unwilling to do what is necessary.

I will never forgive myself for leaving Iraq in the state we did. We literally told the people to trust us, that we would protect them and help them... and then just abandoned them to be slaughtered for cooperating with us. Removing Sadam was a mistake. He was a piece of shit, but at least he kept the animals in check.

>>34245734
The Iraqi's had no reason to accept their defeat after the US dissolved the entire government and military post-invasion, leaving hundred of thousands of angry folks with no jobs and no future since Baathist's were basically banned nationwide.

File: Paul-Wolfowitz.jpg (42KB, 570x379px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 570x379px

>>34246039

>>34245963
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXYyY6lBeUM

UPA went off

>>34245996
>What has changed is that we don't have the will to do what it takes to win them
Vietnam proved that shit doesn't work. People watching TV back in America would see those napalmed villagers, and the military lost their support.

And now we live in an era where the first person to report the assassination of Bin Laden was some random guy in the neighborhood who was using facebook (or was it twitter?). What has changed, anon, is that information moves at the speed of light these days, and your kind of retaliation tactics are just going to create more people to fight against you in the long run. Because when people around the world can witness what you're doing on liveleak, it's inevitably going to reach people who will view/use it as a reason to join the war against you.

File: 1494476918789.jpg (166KB, 852x1130px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 852x1130px

>>34245734
>Why do some wars end and other wars just don't?

>clear objective
>war goals based on logic not emotion
>war has support of belligerent general populations (i.e. no anti war hippies)
>war gains are maintained, enemy losses are maximized until submission, collateral damage disregarded for end goal

war on drugs failed, because the goal was too vague and #420BLAZEIT

war on terror failed because it focuses on a vague idea, direct and indirect sympathizers cause problems in strategy, not really popular support, and goals hinge on an emotional view of war (we need to kill teh fear) instead of establishing an enemy, (all members of ____) and working towards an achievable goal we will not stop until all ____ members are dead

Vietnam failed, because popular support reduced morale, eventually had to be called off.

In ww2 common views of the vilification of the enemy was popular belief: "krauts" "japs" etc, were the absolute evil, consisted of an achievable goals (members of a specific conquerable land area) and collateral damage was seen as necessary (so what if we fire bombed the city and killed thousands of them, they would easily have fought back had we let them live) factories with women and children were enemy logistic structures.

modern conflict revolves around ideas, because they are easy to rally around, and don't require that much strategy, therefore good for politicians. If troops are saying what the hell are we doing here anyway, its probably a good indication that nobody thought about what they are supposed to be doing. in WW2 the answer was "killing those evil japs/krauts"

>muh kill all the terrorizers, nuke them all

not an achievable goal and no established enemy, but it sounds good and gets the people wanting blood.

look at pearl harbor
>muh kamikazes, kill them all
>proceeds to get involved in the European front, as it was logically the more important front (combined vs divided fronts on the allies part)

File: 1494019158031.png (1014KB, 1024x466px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 1024x466px

>>34248338
future wars will be wars for resources, where there will be no rules because one nations survival is more important than anothers

>country a has water
>country b has oil

the catch is they only have enough to support a majority of their population, so either corrupt leaders will sell of nations resources in a privatized fashion, causing general population to suffer, or try to enrich themselves with other nations resources

that or ideologies will go overboard thanks to social media, until civil wars happen

>>34248338
>war on drugs
>war on terror
Anybody remember the War on Poverty? Nah, didn't think so.
US insistence on framing everything in terms of war for the NASCAR decerebrated demographic is misleading.
You should see how rich the rich get during a war!! Why Prescott Bush never got troubled by those unreported transactions with the Third Reich i'll never know!!
Vietnam failed because a popular insurgency can't be defeated. Napoleon learned it with the Basques, but sometimes an Imperial power has to show it's rivals it's crazy enough to go full retard so poor people get steamrollered.
Irag and Afghanistan are just continuations of that.

>>34245761
>muh MIC

Fuck off. The defense industry is only a few companies out of the Fortune 500, and a lot of them make most of their profits from the civilian sector. LockMart is pretty much the only company in the Fortune 100 which makes the majority of its profits from defense contracts.

Shoo, shoo retarded commie

>>34245996
Fuck off, edgy kid.

The Romans regularly wheeled and dealed their way out of insurgencies, more often than they razed their opponents.

>>34248338
>body armor
>NVGs
>individual comms

Honestly, that's not too far off from what we have now.

>>34248669
Yes they did and when it didn't work out the way they wanted, guess what they did next.

>>34248669
romans also assimilated the peoples/aristocracy they conquered or cowed. If you kidnap the children of some garlic tribal bigwig, raise them as romans, and return them to rule the tribe once daddy dies you have basically built a roman ally

>>34248776
>you have basically built a roman ally
Sometimes you get some legions wiped out though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Teutoburg_Forest

>>34245734
>>>34245734
>Wars rarely start conventional and go guerilla, usually a surrender is honored if no atrocities are committed post surrender
This and sand nigs have no honor or morals.

>>34248693
That's not what you said. You completely omitted the role of Roman diplomacy to be edgy.

WW2 was total war.

There was no difference between civilian and military targets. Carpet bombing cities full of civilians was a legitimate tactic that was employed by all sides, with the goal of breaking the will of the people of the other country to end support for the war effort.

We haven't really seen total war since WW2 because now we have a thing called the geneva convention and war crimes, which are rules we made up so we could prosecute the nazi leadership.

Without destroying the will to fight of the civilian population wars just tend to drag on and on...

>>34245734
Ww2 never really ended it just turned jnto a cold one

Chruch hill had plans to invade russia but that ended cos thee were more russians

Also history is not read past ww2 which says a lot doesnt it if you think about it the vietnam war the korean war the middle east wars are all part of ww2

>>34245996
It's not entirely impossible

Look at what the Australians did in Vietnam. Instead of trying to work with the civilians in their AO, they basically imposed a massive exclusion zone around their task force base and told all of the civilians inside of it to GTFO. It was more of a brute force solution, but it meant they could be sure that anyone they encountered within the zone was an enemy.

>>34245996
We dont have what it takes yeah great idea look at what israel does to the palestinians when ever they react and what the palestinans do back to isreal cos of it

All mass killing does is make them fight harder

>>34249121
>muh Geneva convention
Wanna know how I know you're retarded?

>>34245734
most historians agree that the harsh interrogation techniques by the allies were able to stop any German insurgency before it started. However, we did have plans in effect for a 4 year insurgency in occupied Germany.
Today, we are to nice to implement as harsh of interrogation techniques

>>34248660
You are and idiot or a shill.
run along back to your indoctrination masters, time for your latest brainwashing session

>>34248439
>war on drugs
>war on terror
= artificially manufactured criminals from Innocent civilian populations = endless war

>>34245761
>>34245810
>>34248660
It's not direct contractor shekels. It's control over oil, control over Europe via migration, and allowing people with inside knowledge to make an absolute killing on the stock market. Look at (((people))) like George Soros.

>>34249248
Describe, in your words, why defense production is threatening consumer production.

>>34249309
If it's so obvious, you should be able to quantify it some meaningful way.

Go do that.

>>34249238
>something something harsh interrogation techniques
>something something, we're too much of a bunch of pussies now
Why don't you tell us about some of the great techniques used in WW2 that we aren't using now?

>>34245734
Because brown people are sore losers.

>>34245873
This is why we need to stop going to war with fucking kiddie gloves on. Just bomb the fuckers into submission, none of this pansy hearts and minds bullshit. It never works.

>>34249150
>ended cos thee were more russians

no, it was because the worlds deadliest and most destructive war just ended

>>34249238
This post is dumb.

You're dumb.

>>34245734
>Why do some wars end and other wars just don't?
Because war is a racket. It is a business model. Endless war with a conceptual enemy by design. Justification to go kick shit off wherever, whenever, because we said so. Now they kill children and justify it and we protect poppy fields and heroin use skyrockets after our big-pharma gets you hooked up on the oxy starter-pack.

FUCKING DISGUSTING.

Muslims

>>34245734
Japan and Germany did have extensive occupations. they didn't just bend overnight.

the reason Afghanistan and Iraq fell into insurgency though is because those societies

>had underlying tensions prone to civil war
think of Iraq, where you have Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all fucking about, along with foreign militias, etc. couple this with how weak the post Saddam Iraqi govt was...

with the state out of the way, these groups had free reign to Duke it out in their civil war.

same in Afghanistan...the Taliban were simply the strongest warlords in a country full of warlords. without them, there was a power vacuum the Afghan govt couldn't handle.

in Japan, we left their government intact for the most part, and the Japanese are a fairly united people.

in Germany, the postwar allied backed state was strong enough to resist insurgents, and the US stuck around indefinitely for strategic reasons.

>>34249634
This

>>34245808
>>34245950

The Baltic states were fighting insurgencies on into the sixties. The soviets eventually ground them down, as the partisans weren't able to replace their numbers. The collectivization of the farms also hurt, since they were no longer being supplied by friendly farmers, and were forced to steal food from collective warehouses, ensuring punishment for the community and a loss of popular support.

Yet another piece of history that is left untaught by communist sympathizers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_European_anti-Communist_insurgencies

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_Brothers#Decline_of_the_resistance_movements

IIRC, at the end of the Civil War, Forrest offered to break out and begin a guerrilla resistance against occupying Northern forces. He was ordered not to by Lee, which allowed for a former end of hostilities.

Reconstruction was a mess that probably did more harm than good, but you can imagine what a nightmare the south would have turned into if a Southern cavalry genius had turned his full efforts into creating chaos. It would have been Bloody Kansas throughout the entire region, for decades.

>>34245734

Because the Afghanistan and Iraqi, and most importantly their populaces' military capabilities were never dismantled so guerillas just keep popping up because its easy to get a gun.

>>34247662

You say that but ISIS televises its killings to the public and still gets romanticized as freedom fighters trying to take out corrupt western society, with recruits pouring over from the west.

>>34249634

And how are you going to bomb them when the terrorist groups that lead them are headquartered in Saudi Arabia?

>>34245734
Mostly because of rules of engagement and civilian interference in military policy. By which I mean we can't just obliterate a country and then occupy it anymore.

>>34248431
Except for the fact that nowadays its cheaper to acquire resources by trade than conquest.

>>34253193
That's just plain false you retard. Outside of fringe lunatics every Muslim believed Isis had been created by America

>>34245996
yes i concur
my country got rid of communism by essentially genociding anyone who even talked to or was associated with guerrilla fighters
if you make believing in something a death sentence, then that belief will most surely die out
this is why the west can't win with its current outlook
we need to genocide the Islam out of the middle east.

>>34245734
>Why do some wars end and other wars just don't?
>WWII for example
WWII was actually a continuation of...you guessed it, WWI.

>>34249324
Dude Tinfoilers can't go past "muhhh jeeewwwwsszzz" that's it that's all their arguments. Just as bad as any commie or any nazi. Fucking idiots all of them.