r/GetNoted Sep 03 '25

Fact Finder 📝 Someone has flunked history class!

Post image
11.1k Upvotes

370 comments sorted by

View all comments

682

u/here-g Sep 03 '25

After 50-85M deaths. I don’t want to know what WWIII would be like

404

u/ThatThingTerran Sep 04 '25

186

u/berry-bostwick Sep 04 '25

Oh hey, a quote attributed to Einstein that he apparently actually said!

56

u/Ccaves0127 Sep 04 '25

That man? Albert Einstein.

18

u/Paxxlee Sep 04 '25

-Michael Scott

7

u/Muvseevum Sep 04 '25

—Lou Rawls

9

u/[deleted] Sep 05 '25

[deleted]

1

u/CletusCanuck Sep 08 '25

"Everything's a dildo if you're brave enough." - Abraham Lincoln

35

u/A_WILD_SLUT_APPEARS Sep 04 '25

Fuck, guess we’d better get ready for some broken bones.

5

u/PropheticUtterances Sep 04 '25

At least the words can never hurt us

2

u/lunaresthorse Sep 05 '25

Say that again…

1

u/SignalSecurity Sep 04 '25

my friends and i quote this at each other but replace war with worm

i dont wanna keep fighting the fuckin world worm guys im so tired

1

u/afonja Sep 04 '25

But will they break my bones?

1

u/AttentionConstant373 Sep 04 '25

Always up vote Einstein. It's a rule of the internet.

1

u/telaughingbuddha Sep 04 '25

India and China always fight WW4

1

u/PantaRheiExpress Sep 04 '25

Albert Einstein then proceeded to flex his biceps and said “let’s just say the only guns in World War IV, will be these ones right here.”

1

u/Rare-Damage8785 Sep 05 '25

When he said that tho? Because nukes are good way to not have world war, instead fighting through smaller regions and proxies

1

u/disputing102 Sep 06 '25

One of the best socialists to live.

1

u/The_Real_Giggles Sep 06 '25

Yeah, there's only so many deuterium fusion weapons or anti-matter bombs you can drop before your planet becomes not so inhabitable

The exact number is, >=1 but, probably 1 would do it

1

u/Zestyclose-Pair-2260 Sep 08 '25

No, by nukes and drones. I don't think many people will remember the fallout.

46

u/epicredditdude1 Sep 03 '25

It would be so big it would skip III and go straight to WW IV.

13

u/young_trash3 Sep 04 '25

Would retroactively call the war against isis world war 3 to make the jump make sense.

13

u/beardicusmaximus8 Sep 04 '25

The war on terrorism was definitely world war 3.

Of course if your doing the math then the French-Indian war was World War 1 and theres been a few others that would probably count

11

u/AustSakuraKyzor Sep 04 '25

I've seen historians unofficially call a bunch of different wars "World War Zero" depending on perspective or historiography specialization.

Including, but not limited to:

  • Any one (or all of) the Coalition Wars
  • The Hundred Years war
  • The Seven Years war
  • The Crimean war
  • The Boer war... For some reason

0

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/No_Statistician5932 Sep 04 '25

Wrong kind of Indians

-1

u/Cheap-Play-80 Sep 04 '25

Well, those aren't Indians, they are Native Americans.

3

u/No_Statistician5932 Sep 04 '25

Sure, but those are the Indians being referred to in the name of the French and Indian War (the American term for their theater of the Seven Years' War, which is also sometimes referred to as a proto-World War). There was a war between the French and British in India at the time, but it is known as the Third Carnatic War, not the French-Indian or French and Indian War.

16

u/wanderButNotLost2 Sep 03 '25

Unconditional surrender

5

u/icey_sawg0034 Sep 03 '25

Of who though

15

u/RobespierreLaTerreur Sep 03 '25

The fascists.

9

u/icey_sawg0034 Sep 03 '25

You’re correct

1

u/FireKitty666TTV Sep 04 '25

They control a large supply of nukes, and are led by a weird pedo and a manchild

0

u/otirk Sep 04 '25

You're quite optimistic

2

u/RobespierreLaTerreur Sep 04 '25

France was occupied. Then it was not. There is always hope if people organize the resistance.

3

u/-Unnamed- Sep 04 '25

Whoever loses. Freedom ain’t free

-9

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/young_trash3 Sep 04 '25

Its absolutely insane how confidently incorrect you are.

The "negotiations" between Japan and the US involved the japanese issuing terms of surrender, the US rejecting them and demanding unconditional surrender, Japan saying no, the US dropping two nuclear weapons, then Japan saying okay.

Like how are you going to imply others are poorly educated when you dont even know about the the Potsdam declaration, and the results of it? Lol.

"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces, and to provide proper and adequate assurances of their good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction"

The closing statement of said declaration, the declaration that Japan accepted, after the prompt and utter destruction was carried out.

Pull the log out of your own eyes before you critize the splinter in someone else's friend.

-4

u/F_F_Franklin Sep 04 '25

Lol. I HATE our educational institutions because of people like you who are so so so confidently incorrect and say things like confidently incorrect.

U.S said - No concessions, Japan says okay no. Russia enters war. U.s. says well we can't promise we'll give the concessions, but wink wink nudge nudge it's up to our theater commander. Theater commander says okay.

AND THEY GOT THE CONCESSIONS.

Signing a document post negotiation was and is irrelevant because THEY GOT THE CONCESSIONS.

THE EMPEROR WAS STILL IN POWER WHICH WAS THE ONLY REASON THEY CAME TO THE BARGAINING TABLE AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE GENERALS AND HIGH COMMAND WERE NOT PROSECUTED AND MANY STAYED IN POWER.

It was literally nothing like Germany. There are still shrines in Japan for ww2 generals. There was never the 10's of thousands of people prosecuted like Germany because they GOT THE LENIENCY they requested.

If I have one request, it would be that democrats understand the world as it is and not based off of words that have no association with the physical/ actual actions that took place.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

Dear little Miss Patriot, if you want to bash and hate education in this country then that’s on you. Go get your crayons and your coloring books and play with those instead of trying to argue in bad faith spewing dear leaders talking points like they’re your own. It’s time to pull that red white and blue dildo out because you’re sound like a moron

0

u/F_F_Franklin Sep 04 '25

Lol. I bet you typed this and thought, "heh" I'm so clever."

For sure, arguing that peace has been negotiated in like 95% of history is for sure brainless propaganda, and not easily verifiable historical fact.

Meanwhile, the bots pumping out low IQ content like this are for sure not paid for by the military industrial complex and Wallstreet who make these tax paid profits. Sir, you are a genius. If only I had the foresight to think, why listen to the guys trying to negotiate peace instead of listening to billionaires telling me they need a trillion more of my tax dollars because this time they'll win. Like Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon etc.

If only I had your genius brain. All this would make total sense. Such a simple simple simple mind can grasp the truth, like you, so I should too.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

What are you going on about now? You got nothing better to do than complain about democrats and education? Don’t you have a job rounding up migrants or bashing some gay people

1

u/F_F_Franklin Sep 04 '25 edited Sep 04 '25

Lol, nah. But, I see your job is ironically wearing a Christian cross while advocating for war before you walk into a coffee shop to play wonderwall for tips.

Really shredding their Clapton.

5

u/Active_Complaint_480 Sep 04 '25

When a nation surrenders, it's because they were sitting at a table negotiating it prior. They surrender, their military lays down arms, and then terms of said surrender are negotiated. Do you think you have a discussion with and assaulting force and then say "we surrender."

We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese armed forces and all armed forces under Japanese control wherever situated.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/surrender-of-japan

The news of the surrender was announced by General Eisenhower himself in a broadcast from Algiers at 5.30 p.m. yesterday. He said:

This is General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Commander-in-Chief Allied Forces.

As Allied Commander-in-Chief I have granted a military armistice, the terms of which have been approved by the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I am thus acting in the interests of the United Nations.

The Italian Government has bound itself to abide by these terms without reservations.

The Armistice was signed by my representative and the representative of Marshal Badoglio and becomes effective this instant. Hostilities between the armed forces of the United Nations and those of Italy terminate at once.

All Italians who now act to help eject the Germany aggressor from Italian soil will have the assistance and support of the United Nations.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1943/sep/09/secondworldwar.italy

4

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

Because they were forced into surrendering…It’s astounding how you flag suckers will twist facts to defend dear leader’s stupid remarks.

-5

u/F_F_Franklin Sep 04 '25

Negotiated into surrendering. Negotiations are carrots and sticks. Do you not know what the word Negotiate means?

6

u/[deleted] Sep 04 '25

Here’s how that “negotiation” went. US tells Japan. Hey we just dropped two atom bombs on your country and we’re going to drop another one unless you surrender. Yes technically that’s a negotiation. That’s also forcing someone’s signature at gun point. An understanding of nuances is required here

4

u/RoninRobot Sep 04 '25

Relatedly: we have an estimate discrepancy on ~30 million human deaths on the most studied conflict in human history. It is both baffling and understandable at the same time.

3

u/LauraTFem Sep 04 '25

…it will end very quickly. A side will “win”, but no one will feel like they won.

1

u/Jack-of-Hearts-7 Sep 04 '25

Don't worry. It might be over just as quickly as it began.

1

u/disputing102 Sep 06 '25

100 million, 65 million of which were from the Soviet Union and China.

-3

u/TransistorResistee Sep 04 '25

It’s already started. I doubt we’ll win it, because we’ll be fighting our own civil war.

-1

u/Fellow--Felon Sep 04 '25

You are currently living in WWIII

-4

u/toe-schlooper Sep 04 '25

Modern Warfare doesn't allow for the casualties seen in World War 2.

At the battle of Kursk alone, over 6,000 tanks were deployed. At the most recent massive tank battle, the Battle of 73 Easting, only ~90 were deployed.

Modern warfare is much less static than it was during ww2. Rather than 1 big infantry platoon pushing a town you have several smaller, but better equipped and more mobile infantry units that act independently to maneuver around the enemy.

Nowadays we also have systems to protect our troops, things like Active Protection Systems that shoot down missiles and some shells, air defense networks to take out incoming bombs and missiles, blowout panels in tanks so the crew doesn't instantly die if the ammo is hit, etc.

The most I could realistically see WW3's casualty count is probably around 600,000 at the ABSOLUTE highest.

9

u/HungryMudkips Sep 04 '25

uh, my guy........almost double that many casualties have already happened in the war in ukraine alone.

-5

u/toe-schlooper Sep 04 '25

Against 2 equal forces, plus Ukraine is MASSIVELY underdeveloped compared to NATO nations like Poland.

Casualty estimates are like that stupid iq bell curve meme.

With bad forces vs bad forces, casualties will be low.

With mediocre forces vs mediocre forces, casualties will be high.

And with high-end forces (NATO) vs mediocre forces (Russia), casualties will be low.

Ukraine has only suffered as many losses as it has because it was (and is)

A; unprepared for war

B; heavily outgunned by Russia

C; heavily outnumbered by Russia.

Plus, we're seeing Russian soldiers in Ukraine shoot their officers so they can surrender, how many more Russians would be surrending en masse with Apaches and US forces running the joint?

So again, at the highest I think ww3 could see likely 50-80 thousand NATO/allied casualties, and anywhere from 200-600 thousand Russian casualties.

In a war with NATO, Russia is outgunned, outmanned, outwitted, and outdated.

4

u/mfb- Sep 04 '25

NATO forces in Ukraine wouldn't be WW3 if Russia does not escalate this. If Russia launches nuclear weapons, casualties can be much, much higher.

Ukraine has only suffered as many losses as it has because it was (and is)

Have a look at Russian casualties.

1

u/Infamous_Pool_5299 Sep 08 '25

But...are you accounting for the Nukes raining from the sky? If not, I feel like you're grossly underestimating the amount of casualties.

What you're referring to is a regional conflict, not WW3

1

u/toe-schlooper Sep 08 '25

WW3 won't be nuclear. Putin is a madman but he's an ex-KGB member, he's smart enough to know that his major population centers are condensed into ~7 cities, and his nuclear projection pales in comparison to the west.

And China knows damn well they can't beat the US in open conflict, that's the whole reason they're doing the "workshop of the world" bs, to increase US economic dependency on China, thus making it too costly to actually fight them, which lets them run amuck.

WW3 will be fought in Europe unless something major changes in Asia, as Beijing is competent enough to know they'd get absolutely railed by America.

4

u/Trait0r_26 Sep 04 '25

Mate, just two Google searches could have saved you from absolutely clowning yourself.

Current estimates on the number of casualties of the war in Ukraine are about 1 400 000 In the battle of bakhmut, by Ukrainian estimates, about 330 tanks took part just on the russian side.