/kc/ - Krautchan

 >>/42053/
I think ideology is much less important than it may be assumed to be. Just look at a situation like Korea or Vietnam, the split between ideology is solely based on location, almost like the ideology itself is unimportant and it just happens to be the flavour of the government they are under. If that was not the case you would see each army being a complete mix of various regions who had crossed either north or south to fight for the ideology they believe in but that doesn't generally happen, they usually stay and fight for the area they come from and in the cases they don't it's usually more to do with a group being poor and oppressed and thus willing to fight for whoever promises salvation rather than purely idealogical I would say. And taking that a step further you have the post WW2 Germans who on either side of the wall served the ideology of their former enemy. I'm not saying ideology does not matter just that it's not the sole factor or even the most important factor. In fact even before then, their were Germans ethnics who fought against the Germans in Poland and France and then joined the German army afterwards and there were Poles fighting for communists and democracies.

I think the average American would see the threat to Britain as being a good enough motivation as they are quite culturally close and then added to that in 1941-2 having both themselves attacked(although they were never in any real threat) and then seeing Australia become isolated and vulnerable would give them even more motivation. I don't think any US soldier would think that the war was wrong and not worth it.

 >>/39330/
> We arrested them all
you were in the parastroopers?

 >>/42056/
You weren't? I thought everyone here was.
I assume that's a line from the Oral History of the Army.

 >>/42053/
I guess everyone goes along with the crowd without putting too much thought into it.

 >>/42053/
never underestimate peer pressure paprika man. just look at the plandemic today. most who say they will not take the vaccine will take it once their job requires it or their family/friends push them towards it. perhaps only the truest of bernd will stand firm in the face of mob mentality.

ZZC 1542 Mil... jpg
(313.27 KB, 2150x3035)

I'm interested in what nations see as the legendary battles of their country if they have them.

In Australia we have this ANZAC Legend. This idea of the Australian Soldier being a rough and sturdy farmer from the outback used to living in the bush, a larrakin, stoic and for whom mateship is one of if not the most important thing to him. We have two(possibly three) famous battles that have become part of the fabric of Australian legend. Gallipoli and Kokoda, with the possible addition of Tobruk although it's not really as legendary or famous as the first two.

Gallipoli was one of our first battles and we have this idea that it was a bloodbath. The popular narrative is that it was almost entirely if not entirely an ANZAC affair and that it was instigated by the British who did not care about us and saw us as cannon fodder and therefore they sent us to this massacre to die for little to no purpose. There is even an odd kind of kinship with the Turk over this, where Australians feel that we should not have been there and that the Turks suffered too so were were both victims of the British. Of course looking into this you will find that actually it was not an ANZAC operation, the British and French were a party to it as well and in fact suffered greater than we did, some of the toughest beaches were those stormed by the British. Turkish coastal Artillery actually could not reach Anzac cove and the beach itself was not seen as being all that likely for a major landing so was not too well defended comparatively.

ZZC 0539 jpg
(1.46 MB, 1479x1920)

Part 2(Post was too long apparently)

The Second battle, that of the Kokoda trail is seen as a small ragtag force of reserves outnumbered and fighting their way back to safety against a Japanese foe that hugely out numbered them until finally reinforcements from the regular army(the 6th and 7th Divisions that had been send back from North Africa for this purpose) arrived and saved the day. There is a feeling that the British were using us and did not care about the defence of Australia at all, hence why there were reserves defending Australia in the first place and not the 6th and 7th Divisions. But again, once you look into this, in the initial stages the numbers were fairly even, sometimes we were slightly outnumbered but sometimes we outnumbered them, we were also fighting a retreat through dense jungle and hilly terrain, the perfect environment for that and fighting against a poorly equipped enemy with a terrible logistics system while we had support from the US and a better system of supply and equipment to begun with, some estimates say that over 90% of Japanese forces that died in the Papua New Guinea theatre died of sickness and disease, they suffered horribly from their terrible logistics. Once the 6th and 7th Divisions arrived we then quite significantly outnumbered them. As for weather the British really cared so little and were willing to see us invaded, it was unlikely ever to happen even had we lost Papua and New Guinea and as Chief of the Imperial General staff Field Marshall Sir Alanbrooke told his Australian colleague and noted in his war diary when we kept pestering about having our forces returned, the war was not going to be won or lost in Australia anyway yet if Britain fell Australia would fall with her.

As for the Anzac Spirit, I think all enlisted men fit that description, they are all going to be poor working class type lads and you ALWAYS here about this notion of fighting for the man beside you and keeping a sense of humour in every army. Also interestingly only 13.1% actually came from Agricultural backgrounds according to information on the Australian War Museum website and most of them would not be from the 'outback'. This makes sense as farmers played a vital function.

Is this more of an Australian thing or do other nations have certain near mythological battles like this too or a certain legendary Soldier ethos as well? I'm particularly interested in seeing whether tiny and unimportant nations have them, like Hungary for example, they lost both world wars and nobody hears much about them in either war, yet they most have some internal views on certain battles that they took part in.

 >>/42140/
Opps, I meant Australian War memorial website not war Museum.

It mentions some other interesting things too like the average height.

> {10} A recruit might conceal his age, but not his height. In 1939 the AIF minimum was 5 feet 6 inches (167.6 cm); a year later 5 feet (152 cm) was enough.[24] The patchy figures available suggest an average of about 5 feet 7.7 inches (172 cm), slightly shorter than the American average of 5ft 8.4in (173.7 cm).

And that recruits were dumb.

Table 3: Psychological assessments of intellectual capacity of recruits: Proportion above median for the army standard recruit population (%) 

Civil adult male population 	72
Recruits (standard recruit population) 	51
Recruits allocated to arms 	72
Signals 	91
Armoured and cavalry 	75
Machine guns 	72
Artillery 	71
Infantry 	65

> 15} Australian army recruits were generally not highly educated: men assessed as requiring attention because they were 'educationally backward' were probably more common than those who had completed a full secondary course, and illiterates were two to three times more prevalent than the university educated.[37] The 1942-3 census found that approximately half the men in the Army had left school at age 14, two-thirds at or before that age.[38] Only 7 per cent had completed a full secondary course, and 1.4 per cent a degree or diploma.[39]

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/journal/j29/civils

 >>/42139/
> were both victims of the British
Everyone were.
How about the losses? Comparatively it can be sensitive.
Also it might be different for new nations. No struggles to look back onto, build a tradition around. And no basis to judge, how they fared.

 >>/42140/
> Part 2(Post was too long apparently)
Maybe for the engine, but we don't mind that.
Funny how the Bri'ish are the bad guys in both cases, still Straya always siding with the Queen. But not surprising.
I think in relation to WWII, the Western Allies all magnify their struggles. Like how every tank was a Tiger on the Western Front, and similar. Ofc it wasn't a joke (well they joked about an American division in Normandy: it consisted three divisions: 1 in the front, 1 in the hospital, 1 in the cemetery), but the real struggle was in the Eastern Front.

> Hungary for example
There are myths and gossips going around how we were screwed by everyone, from the boots with paper soles to our allies shooting at us or leaving our soldiers behind. But I do not really know about particular battles being subjected to similar what you told. Also we have way bigger selections in battles due to the millennia long history. However I do have something to add, and there's a very recent case which fit to your idea.
In the next post ofc.

 >>/42140/
Btw, was this idea born for that movie you mentioned?

 >>/42140/
So, getting back to your question. Making legends is an unavoidable process, magnifying the importance of certain events, shifting attention to one participant from others, people rationalizing certain infos they heard but don't know the background or the circumstances, etc. etc. all add up. In Hungary's case too, ofc. But we have to differentiate between certain things.
The folk memory will always diverge form what historians establish about an event (eg. a battle) since they rely on different sources (and/or historians use additional sources besides the tales/memoirs of the participants), and the folk memory also influenced by literary, or other artistic works.
Hungarian historiography is in a weird situation, in a dissociative identity disorder if you will. At it's birth Western European (Bri'ish, French, German) ones were already established, they all had professional authorities with established ways of telling history (hugely influenced by 19th century nationalism) with strong opinions, and forming dogmas. Hungarian historians not just had to meet expectations they thought they had to, but this remained a continuous pressure since then - again it isn't an expressed pressure from Westerners, I think they couldn't care less. On top of it Hungarian historians also had to meet expectations of foreign lords in most of the last 200 years (ie. Wien and Moscow). And even when "free" politics always had it's pressure on what to write and how the events have to be interpreted and presented (and mostly our politics always had some foreign power's opinion to worry about). So these guys got used to it to be extremely suspicious and skeptical about Hungarian sources (or anything that says "nice" things about us; great contrast - for example - how Anglos treat northern sagas) and very permissive toward foreign sources - often labeling them objective -, and placid and servile toward foreign scientific(?) authority.
On the late Krautchan I often saw Bernds' opinion that every nation's history writing is biased toward that nation, and sometimes saw Hungarobernds (and me) getting accused by heavy nationalist/chauvinistic bias during certain discussions (for example arguments vs Northern Hungarians or Romanians) but the truth is, if our arguments are based on scientific Hungarian historical works then we do not argue from the other extreme but we are at the halfway point (or even more towards the opponents' extremes).
If you want an example of a non-nationalistic historiography, the Hungarian one is the prototype of that.

at-the-Don jpg
(93.46 KB, 696x460)

2nd-Hun-Ar... gif
(26.44 KB, 373x595)

donkanyar1 jpg
(102.42 KB, 704x411)

 >>/42173/
40 years of communism complicated the matter in more than one way. The history not just had to be written along Marxist and Leninist principles but also was used to break nationalistic feelings (it's weird how some commie countries could pump nationalism up in the sky, here they organized worker brigades to beat up those who would celebrate March 15). But it had to be written not just to break nationalistic sentiments, but had to create the feeling of solidarity toward those historical figures and movements which deemed to be the predecessors of class struggle, so they created kinda proletarian heroes whom sometimes were already some kind of folk heroes (and therefore nationalistic...). 
Here I want to spend a moment on something that directly related to the question presented. How we treat WWII battles. This is also a little example how we treat these topics.
During the communism there wasn't much talk about WWII, we were defeated and labeled to war criminals alongside Germany and Japan, in polticial propaganda (supported by the "objective" marxist historiography) of the Hungarian communist party and state leadership we were called the "last henchman" of Hitler and Germany. Stalin (up until 1953) and the Soviet Union and her heroes had to be praised unconditionally. If they told anything about our participation, it was bad. But was told very little, remembered even less. Only people talked in their homes, since every family had a member who participated in the war in some way, but even them the past struggle wasn't that important unless they harbored some anger due to (perceived or real) injustice.
War graves were left untended and forgotten, but there's an example when tens of thousands of WWI(!) and WWII burials were flattened and built over. Oh they issued an edict that ordered to erect monuments and memorials at the graves Red Army soldiers. Well at least they did not ban people from privately tending German and Hungarian graves if they wanted to bother with it. It's just in certain years it wasn't prudent to do that.
One of the battles Hungarians fought during WWII, was the battle at Voronezh, at the Don, about halfway between Moscow and Stalingrad. The 2nd Hungarian Army defended on he western shore of the river in January of 1943. This was a huge defeat which essentially broke the army apart. I have a book, published in 1961, about the WWII in general so the topic isn't particularly about Hungarian participation, but originally the text was aired on national radio, so it's something that an average civilian could hear, which could shape how they thought about the events. This is what's written about the battle of Voronezh:
"The Red Army achieves great results in the offensive at the Voronezh front as well, starting with January 12th: during a few days they destroy ten enemy divisions, Voronezh gets liberated, the 2nd Hungarian Army died here."
...to be continued.

So the commies not just made us celebrate our occupation, but stacked all the positions of scientific authority, journals, publishers, museums, universities, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Some sure was a competent professional, most wasn't, however political reliability and the ability to do what they were told to mattered more. They bullied those out from their ranks who did not follow line, those who questioned dogmas were given the backwater positions, were hampered in their research, denied resources from them, or even disbarred from the scientific community. And these guys ofc groomed their own replacement, the new generation.
What's coming I already talked about briefly in the tank thread.
When the wall came down they still were in the positions, and they were replaced by their best students. So while changes happened with the exception of certain things (like the excessive praise of the Soviet Union) it did not happen overnight. And there were limits, actually these still are in place. While in the west it isn't taboo to talk about Axis military successes, acknowledge their valor, or performance, here, after 30 years such opinions are still not presentable entirely in most circles, and despicable in some smaller. If you are a historian you have to thread carefully, you could get labeled as an extremist, or even anti-Semite, and then you are done. So historians do not go ahead and exaggerate WWII (not even WWI) Hungarian military might, or celebrate successes, or easily shift responsibility onto foreign participants of the wars.

 >>/42147/
No, that was about Long Tan, that's not so famous which makes sense as it was a part of the Vietnam war which was not so popular.

 >>/42173/
 >>/42174/
 >>/42195/
Sad but I guess it makes sense. Communists are hardly likely to encourage the glorification of battles involving monarchs or any nationalistic feelings or culture at all, they are much like ISIS in that way. Essentially believing that history starts with them.

 >>/42195/
Although, one would think that after liberation from Soviet rule the nation would celebrate by glorifying anti-soviet actions, like the Hungarian uprising but also maybe certain battles fought against the Soviets in WW2.

 >>/42196/
> No, that was about Long Tan
But could have motivated you to write about the other stuff.

 >>/42197/
I've still stuff to write and continue. I didn't say, while I had noted it earlier, so that inconsistency could give the impression I finished, sorry.
And yes, there were some official changes, for example the celebration of '56, which was made into a national holiday, but even that is not easy how to interpret. It was a society wide movement, basically a small segment of the ruling elite turned the whole society against them, from communists to real fascists, and everyone between, and after '90 (and basically up to this day) there is a brawl for the heritage of the revolution and war of independence between the participating political groups, everyone trying magnify their own role (and deny others, or misinterpret stuff). Although it's not that sharp or prominent phenomenon.

 >>/42204/
*a small segment of the ruling elite turned the whole society against themselves

 >>/42195/
But all these also mean that a relatively free discussion could only exist outside of science, only on the fringes of society. But they didn't really have access to original documents, but at first there were those who participated in the events, then they become dads, then grandpas, and they told their stories, and their sons and grandkids listened. And then gradually people got access to literature published in the west, historical works, but also such sources like Horthy's memoirs.
One would think in the Free World the scientists were free to do their job, but actually they were also fought in the trenches of Cold War and had to apply some cosmetics of the official propaganda onto their works. Besides they didn't necessarily had access to primary sources - like how our friend, Tooze, had access to and processed official Reich documents -, maybe not to Germans, but to Soviet, they definitely didn't. So even if they wrote on a sure honest basis, their works still could came out lopsided.
Those who actually cared about history for whatever reason on one side they got the hated communist state's propaganda which they thought it's all lies (partially true, but Eastern Block historians occasionally criticized sharply such deeds of Western Allies like the bombing of Dresden, they kept tally on the other side; and beneath all the layer of misplaced superlatives did lay some factual data too) on the other they tried to put together their own truth from similarly biased sources.
They looked more for building grudges and scapegoats to blame than the actual history of the events, but they still had more opportunity to put together the puzzle better.
Then came the regime change.

liptai-map1 jpg
(1.01 MB, 1460x2132)

 >>/42214/
As the thaw set in the 80s the possibilities of the professional historians widened, so the change started earlier. Besides research of other eras (and ofc scientists of different fields) could reach out abroad, they could travel, cooperate with foreign (even Western, but probably not American) institutes, getting access to archives and so on.
In fact - to stay the example above - the book I have about Hungary's military history from 1985 calls the destruction of the 2nd Hungarian Army at the Don a "tragedy" and absolves the Hungarian soldiers from the responsibility of the collapsing front. But the author only does that put the blame on the class enemy, the Horthyst officers, high command, the ruling class, and the Horthy-system itself.
Compared, Horthy himself in a communique also absolved the soldier, but the army as a whole. We could say that is an overlap in opinion between these guys very far from each other on the political scale, then must be true. However Horthy also had ulterior motive, he wanted to keep morale up, or at least not shatter it in the whole country, plus wanted to show support of the homeland for the troops marching out of the most dangerous situation.
But after '89-90 suddenly foreign books appeared on the market along with the works of semi-amateurs/semi-professionals. Curriculum changed - politics reshuffled the emphasis on many topics - too. I think pressure from all sides also led to the change in the tone of the historians.
Today they reached to the point where they can safely say aren't the soldiers to blame, but not because of the system were at fault instead of them, they acknowledge that was the most what in that situation could be done.
When people talk about the battle - beside the "what if" scenarios - they usually stick to what I previously wrote, the nursing grudges and accusations, like how the retreating German troops didn't help to our retreating troops - which has nothing to do with the actual battle itself -, or that our soldiers got boots with paper soles which was ruined by a puddle of water - this happened in WWI but was turned into a meme and it is repeated on every instance. Tho the critique - which also frequently echoed - that our army got a too long piece of front to defend compared to the size of the unit (to the low manpower), and for this the Germans are to blame, is justified.
So all in all, it's not to bad where we are at.

Picrel is a map from the book of 1985.

egy-elfeled... png
(917.76 KB, 568x838)

battle-of-pozsony jpg
(87.93 KB, 512x335)

Well, this is one example of treating our battles of WWII (and kinda WWI, but noone heard about WWI battles, not counting a couple of autists).
However last Thursday a new animation movie was released about a very important battle of our history, the battle of Pozsony/Pressburg (907), the first defensive battle Hungarians had to fought against foreign invaders in the Carpathian Basin. Here's the link to the full movie:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oiNmszXx_js
It's in Hungarian, but maybe worth a watch. Or not because it isn't good. There is a lot to talk about here, and I just might do it in the next weeks. But for now I would mention two.
First is the quality of the product as an animation. They decided to make it as a 3d one, which very much reminds me of the looks of some vidya (they built the thing upon the Unreal Engine), Total War for example, I think it was a bad choice. I don't mind outdated graphix of computer games, but here, it just looks cheap. They should have done this in the style of the Son of the White Mare:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=oQpIt3WgDHg
The second is what I had to mention it here in relation to the topic what our Aussie friend threw in, they literally built a myth with this, by adding a weird mix of random infos about the steppe people in general and conjectures about the Hungarians, Hungarian military, and events to the very little actual and unreliable data what remained to us. They got harsh criticism from many (partially politically motivated, not surprisingly since the creation of the movie was also partially politically motivated).
Instead of this specific battle, I'd prefer something about the Hungarian prehistory in the view our place among the steppe people. They should have done that. While those times were extremely important in the formation of the Hungarian folk, the common people know terrifyingly little about it. Granted, the average person knows very little about history and Hungarian history in general.
Lot to talk about the movie itself, about the institution which ordered, made, released this animation, about the battle, and about the research of the Hungarian prehistory, to make it clear what are the issues around the story they presented.

Btw about the battle a book was published for the 1100th anniversary of the battle with the title: "Egy elfeledett diadal. A 907. évi pozsonyi csata" (= A forgotten triumph. The battle of Pozsony of 907AD.). I read a review about the book, which sadly I do not own, because seems to be very comprehensive publication.
Ofc there are other books too.

Mohács-map jpg
(481.18 KB, 1600x1267)

Even if I venture into that maze I mentioned above, it's worth to take a look at a battle about halfway between WWII and the events at Pozsony. Another pivotal encounter, a lost one from 1526, the battle of Mohács, against the Ottomans.
In the battle, while fleeing our king Louis II died, he drowned in a river. As we saw in this thread this drowning trope has a long history in battle descriptions, so this event fits right to the original topic as well (eg.  >>/13128/  >>/13129/  >>/13135/).
Throughout the centuries both the reasons of our defeat and the king's death was highly debated, allowing the rise of theories close to stubborn myths, tropes or memes here closer to it's original meaning and not how it is casually used as a synonym of joke. The blame fell (and still falls) either onto the Habsburgs or Szapolyai (then the largest lord of the country, bit later as king János I), depending who prefers whom, but besides them also onto the whole Hungarian nobility, unanimously no matter of era, preference and political stance. I think only recent years, decades historians started to change this picture (this is a global trend, as I noticed not particular to us or this instance, like be more empathetic//, less judgemental/ towards the participants).

Orlai_Discovery_of_th... jpg
(508.13 KB, 1771x1275)

Louis II's death is contested because very little information left about it giving way of much speculation, which started right after the event. The story is that he drowned a river Csele, fell down the horse, or stuck in the bog or the horse fell back while climbed the bank, in short: it was an accident. It was pointed out that it's not a river but a brook 'bout the depth of soup bowl, and this is very suspicious. Also some story was about his body was recovered without his armor, and had wounds on him, must have been killed then they lied about their death or something like that. Then the explanation came that the brook was flooding and yaddi-yaddi-yadda. Then came the conspiracies who wanted him killed and why, looking for motive (well the Crown was enough motive) and stuff liek that.
For about one and a half century now historically it have been well established he drowned in the brook Csele. Now as I googled his death I found bunch of articles saying: "the legend debunked! researchers found the king didn't drown in the Csele!" - what a turn! Did he really was murdered? No. The sensation is that now they say he drowned in a smaller branch of the Danube. While this result might be valuable in the research to locate the site of the clash, the idea, no matter how probable is, does not offer much in the topic, just shows how established the motif of drowning in the historiography (which very well might be just a trope from those times).

Battle-of-Mohács-fro... jpg
(184.01 KB, 478x370)

Tabula_hunga... jpg
(3.27 MB, 3236x4609)

Another debated detail is that the aforementioned Szapolyai, who - among other titles - was the voivode of Erdély and was responsible to gather the troops from there, couldn't make it in time to the king's camp. The notion was put forward he did not so on purpose because he could profit from the death of the king etc, then it was refuted, the troops come to his flag too slow, got contradictory orders from the king, etc. 
As for the reality of the battle, the Ottos were at their peak, while Hungary in itself compared was just not enough. Even if we won that battle (wasn't impossible entirely, and Szapolyai's army could have made the difference) it's questionable if we could the next one or the one after that, the war was essentially lost on the long run. Turning it over would have needed a closer cooperation from the powers (Austria, Czechia, Polan, Hungary) in the region, and that wasn't able to happen in the previous ~150 years, the chance was pretty slim for happening then as well.
Frankly the morale of the story is what I already mentioned a couple of times, without the mutual support of the countries around here, we all be just the bitch of whoever comes from the West, the East, or the South. Rarely anyone - if anyone at all - says this.

Itararé 16 outubro png
(248.46 KB, 670x448)

Itararé legalist... png
(181.49 KB, 445x296)

 >>/42139/
> Legendary battles
Guararapes in the 1640s as part of the wars against Dutch invasion, several in the War of the Triple Alliance such as Avaí, Tuiuti and Riachuelo, and Monte Castello in WWII. Off the top of my head the war against the Dutch is remembered as an early expression of local sentiment (despite being on behalf of the Crown in Lisbon) and a join effort of all races. The war against Paraguay is conceived, amongst other things, as either an incursion of civilization into a dark, barbarian land or a massacre of an innocent people. 
And now, to get more specific, the idea of what our soldiers were like in WWII is something I had to look up. They're seen as scrawny, malnourished underdogs and are the protagonists of several humorous tall tales. In reality the three regiments (1st, 6th and 11th) that made up the 1st Expeditionary Infantry Division were from the core of the country and the most physically fit men were the ones chosen to go abroad.

Speaking of legendary battles is hard because there are no battles. But that is by itself the legend! Aside from extreme violence in the 19th century, little combat is assumed to have taken place in national territory except for the 1932 civil war which might have left some 2000+ dead. The perfect example of this is the term "battle of Itararé", sometimes used as a metaphor for an anticlimactic conflict that doesn't go hot. As it is believed, during the apex of the 1930 Revolution both sides massed troops in that town on São Paulo's southern border, but before they could engage in apocalyptic battle the revolution's triumph ended hostilities. But to give a glimpse of the reality, I'll quote from a book specifically about this event:

Still on October 16 approximately 4,300 revolutionaries attacked all of Morungava's two-kilometer defensive line for the whole day. In Morungava's defense, under FP Major Teóphilo, there were 760 legalist soldiers. Morungava was defended with a profusion of automatic weapons distributed on fortifications in the heights and trenches in the slopes of Pelame's hills and Morungava farm, preventing a direct revolutionary attack.
General Miguel Costa decided to employ the plentiful artillary at his disposal on Cafezal hill, launching a devastating bombardment onto legalist positions by morning. Artillery fire was intense and accurate, restricting the movement of legalist troops, which remained firm in their lines.
Combat continued intensely, even under the torrential rain that fell over the battlefield, doubling the extent of the lines and reaching, by the day's end, four kilometers in length.
The 8th Infantry Regiment was the attacking unit that got the closest to legalist lines, without success, however, as it was forced to retreat, leaving as prisoners 72 enlisted and 5 revolutionary officers. The 15th Caçadores Battalion also took part in the attack. Both units attempted outflanking movements through legalist flanks, without success.
The revolutionaries couldn't dislodge the legalists and no longer had enough troops to cover the whole front. In a last effort the 15th Caçadores was thrown on the far end of the legalist line, trying to envelop it, but also had no success, with the entire attacking organization retreating back to its starting positions in Sengés.
The revolutionaries employed practically a reinforced brigade, equal to around ten battalions, against positions defended by two battalions. The artillery employed, the number of prisoners, everything shows the struggle's intensity.  

All of this happened on the immediate outskirts of Itararé. The revolutionaries were about to deliver the killing blow when a coup d'état in Rio de Janeiro installed a junta that sued for peace and handed power to the revolution. So in everyone's mind, a battle of Itararé is a dramatic, bloody engagement that doesn't took place. The historical event didn't, because there were dramatic, bloody engagements immediately around!

Doudiet_Swearing_alle... jpg
(1.2 MB, 1978x1426)

 >>/42955/
> Speaking of legendary battles is hard because there are no battles. But that is by itself the legend! Aside from extreme violence in the 19th century, little combat is assumed to have taken place in national territory except for the 1932 civil war which might have left some 2000+ dead

We are a little like that too, the only battles on Australian soil(not counting Papua New Guinea which did used to belong to us) were mutinies and rebellions, but that does remind me that there was a battle I overlooked as I was thinking of battles and not little rebellions(though in your case it does not look like it was so little). There was the Eureka Rebellion in which Miners angry at mining fees revolted, they created their own flag and then created a stockade. The Stockade was stormed and a few dozen miners were killed but not long after the miners were given the right to vote. I'm not sure if you would see this flag around or not but many bogans(Bydlodae Australianus) get it tattooed on them. It is kind of like the Australian Confederate flag, I guess for the same reason, it's seen as an anti-authoritarian symbol.

 >>/42958/
Not just Miners got the vote but everybody I mean(well men), it introduced universal suffrage.

emu jpg
(92.5 KB, 1136x852)

 >>/42958/
don't me mention this bird

 >>/42955/
> the most physically fit men were the ones chosen to go abroad.
And even those were scrawny and malnourished... Brazil just can't do it right.
> battle of Itararé
The whole thing sounds like both sides knew very well how to pretend to fight.

 >>/42958/
Brazil at least has neighbors so maybe she can wage a defensive war on her soil, and not just civil wars.

 >>/42955/
I can make another joke from this:
> scrawny, malnourished underdogs
Well, the Jews did win in the end.

 >>/42965/
> And even those were scrawny and malnourished
They were in good shape. Maybe not as tall as the Americans.

Oh hey this thread is still alive.
Fun fact: I'm the Germanyball seriously discussing at the top of the thread, back in 2017.

German WWI veteran... mp4
(12.95 MB, 640x360 h264)

Freshly stolen from Kohl. Supports the observations of the book.

> the exponential rise of violent crimes
not true not real
at most people report a much greater portion og violent crimes not just the most serious ones

 >>/43825/
He's just a wimp. He said that the others were not so fussed.

 >>/44231/
Large part of the book is about the factors make killing possible. Those who did not feel remorse were better at denying the humanity of their victims.
Also he might just exaggerates, he noticed a couple of soldiers happy about the thing and this is what he fixated on, not noticing other people's remorse. He was in emotional turmoil where only very opposing reactions could have stood out for him, while he was preoccupied with his own feelings. Then he just generalized, that everyone was like that.
Plus the impact of the act can hit later. Like for Vietnam veterans.

zdf-report mp4
(9.79 MB, 1024x576 h264)

dreams mp4
(3.14 MB, 854x480 h264)

American media is full with the Rittenhouse case. I can find Hungarian articles too, but different priorities. I don't want to dwell on the issue, my main thoughts actually are related to the On Killing.
He very effectively killed two of his assailants, and injured a third one. If the On Killing is right, that is not an easy feat. Either you have to be that type of person, who disregards human life, or there has to be a number of circumstances and conditions that helps to overcome of the inherent block most people have.
I read/see enough to know he was training with weapons, not just target practice, because in our time and age weapon handling is preparing for scenarios when you have to defend yourself, use your weapon. And those irl scenarios rarely resemble to target practice. Training can overcome to the block. He also had first hand experience of what the "protesters" did. The situation was essentially a riot, with brutality committed against people, and vandalism against property (both private and state). Kyle could have considered his actions justified, he was there to provide safety. The participants frequently behaved like mindless animals. This could allow him to deny their humanity. He was with others, older role models, both providing example to follow, and expectations raised towards him to do what they thought is their duty (among them, his duty).
So I recognize a number of conditions Grossman listed. Might be more.
Despite these enabling factors, a normal human bean will suffer trauma, due to his acts, and have to deal with what he did.
Ofc, I can't tell of his psychological profile, is he a kind of psychopath or not, so won't guess about that.
From yesterday's Tucker Carlson Tonight here's a part where he talks about his dreams.
The first video is ofc, the shooting that happened in Kenosha.

 >>/45612/
Also. Imagine you shoot three people, and you have to give yourself up with a rifle hanging from your shoulder to American policemen in a badly lighted streets with colorful flashing lights all over, while people screaming all about, and shots are getting fired.

 >>/45620/
 >>/45612/
But that's america though bernd. Isn't there always a shooting going around?

 >>/45622/
Memetically: perpetually.
Realistically: the situation ain't that bad.

 >>/45612/
From what I understand, in the heat of the moment he could feel the riot moving against him. He possibly didn't expect he could just run away, either.

 >>/45659/
I think Tucker Carlson made an interview with him this Monday. Must be more info about this in that.

Yeah, here it is:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TJLivznqJ1VP/ [Embed]

24e262aad71892e5cec46... png
(253.5 KB, 460x381)

 >>/45628/
> Realistically: the situation ain't that bad.

Liek 2 big shooterinos just happened after making that post. That place is crazy

pervitin-1 jpg
(63.57 KB, 1000x625)

Probably another topic that I won't ever really explore.
I accidentally came across of a tidbit that American Civil War soldiers were pumped full of opiates. Wanted to check out the reality behind it, and ofc I remembered Panzerschokolade, the methamphetamine many German soldiers took in WWII; and the limitless use of vodka in the Red Army, especially before attacks - so I heard.
So suddenly a whole new topic opened up. What about the use of drugs in other Allied armies? What about Lucky Strike? Vietnam and marijuana?
And ofc, is it an enabling factor in drug use? Does it make soldiers more readily kill? Which drugs? Neither? All? Surely the meth was used for inhuman physical feats, long marches and the like. Weed for relaxing after action. Alcohol to bring out aggression. But what about the rest?
Ofc we know some wars fought because of drugs too.

The... pdf
(5.85 MB, 0x0)

But I want to write a bit about the opiates in the American Civil War (1961-1865). What I found when I search a bit.
Apparently opiates were used by the kilo during the 19th century. Physicians were dazzled by the effectiveness in case just about anything. In the Civil War they gave opiates for:
diarrhea and dysentery, opiates relieved cramps and had a constipating effect
cough suppressants for patients with pneumonia, pleurisy, asthma, bronchitis, influenza, and tuberculosis
pain relief for patients with wounds and injuries, [...] stomachaches, headaches, gallstones, hemorrhoids, tetanus, typhoid fever, malaria, syphilis, and neuralgia.
restlessness, delirium tremens, insanity, and depression
So anything really a soldier could suffer from. It is noted however it has sedative effect, so I doubt they got much before battles. Albeit in some cases poor performance of generals could be explained by opiate addiction.
It is also known that Union physicians gave almost 10 million opium pills, and 3 million ounces of other opiates, with 30 thousand ounces of morphine to the soldiers. The Union mobilized over 2 million troops.
It is unknown how much the Confederates gave, but calculating with similar ratio, for their 1 million soldier, this amount should be about half the above numbers.
Since there were so many things to use it for, I have to assume that all soldiers got something at least once. But addiction only grew from repeated use within short time frame. Which means for that the most susceptible were the wounded, especially the maimed.
I wonder about other drug use in the same war.

Here's two from the top research hits:
https://library.medicine.yale.edu/blog/great-risk-opium-eating-how-civil-war-era-doctors-reacted-prescription-opioid-addiction
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/inside-story-americas-19th-century-opiate-addiction-180967673/
Plus the book I found some data.

 >>/50174/
It's a meme more than anything, I have never heard a German soldier mention it in memoirs and it was banned pretty quickly anyway because it turned solders into useless husks.

 >>/50177/
I dunno. An article said they took 10 million pills in 1941 only. On the other hand the article looked more liek a sensationalist smearticle.

 >>/50179/
I don't remember the full details of it, I just know it was banned for soldiers in either 1940 or 1941 by the army not the government I think.

However, it's a commercial product and as I said I think it was banned by the army, so civilians and the Luftwaffe(and maybe SS and Navy) might still have been able to get it.
I know that the allies gave pilots amphetamines to keep them awake, maybe something similar was continued in the Luftwaffe.

A Deutshe Welle article says it was made illegal in 1941. I can't find the page that I was thinking of that mentioned the German army banning it because of the effect it had on soldiers though.

Pretty much everything that comes up are news tabloids and pop-history such.

 >>/50181/
> news tabloids and pop-history such.
Exactly.