LMFAO this is what happens when you get “education” under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
Nah that’s not what I was saying at all. It’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re using. What I was actually saying is that not only would’ve USSR defeated the nazis on their own, what the west accomplished was a net negative for the world. Had US not gotten itself involved, then Europe would’ve almost certainly have become communist. There wouldn’t have been wars in Vietnam and Korea, Afghanistan, and many other horrors the empire continues to enact, and we wouldn’t be living in capitalist hell in the west today.
No, we are not dealing with alternative history. We are dealing with the history of what the west proceeded to do after the war ended. If you’re going to talk about how many people died then you have to include all the people that the west brutally massacred during the Cold War and continues to massacre today. Because your claim is that the world order that arose out of US participating in the war was a net positive. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to help you understand this.
Once again, you made a claim that the less people died because the US participated in the war. And I simply pointed out that the world order that formed from that resulted in far greater human suffering. Nobody is talking about any alternative histories here. We are talking about the actual history of western depravities that followed in the wake of WW2. Let me know if that’s still unclear to you.
None of them. But you seem kinda hellbent on specialising the one that explicitly carved up several countries that were about to be invaded a literal week before the invasions started.
None of them are viewed as much of anything because nobody ever brings them up. Yet if someone has the gall to claim that the Soviets fought (not even beat) the Nazis, fuckers like you come in to harp on about muh Muhluhtov-Ribbenslop pact.
I think your ignorance is rather showing here. “Appeasement” has literally become a filthy word politically because of those exact pacts. Except for Italy, which ended up an axis power in and of itself so I’m not quite sure wtf you think putting that in accomplished.
You are getting very weirdly het up about people acknowledging the fact that pact occurred. The USSR literally did change sides mid-war. This is fact. That doesn’t negate their part in ending the war (there is literally a saying about british intelligence, US hardware and russian blood) but to act like they were the sole saviours of europe is just as much bullshit as the americans claiming the same
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn’t contribute to the war effort at all.
It’s likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it’s estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it’s more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
It’s obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn’t “win the war for the rest of the Allies” or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a “pinprick” is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were “a great help”.
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
LMFAO this is what happens when you get “education” under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don’t take my word for it though. Here’s what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
How many people a month were dying because of the Nazis?
I love how you ignore those lives as meaningless.
Then we might as well ask how many people a months has US led world order killed since WW2 ended.
You’re the one saying we shouldn’t take any actions unless they are morally blameless.
I’ll be the first to say the US should end its wars. What I don’t understand how not using the Dems to get rid of Trump improves the situation.
Nah that’s not what I was saying at all. It’s just a hamfisted straw man you’re using. What I was actually saying is that not only would’ve USSR defeated the nazis on their own, what the west accomplished was a net negative for the world. Had US not gotten itself involved, then Europe would’ve almost certainly have become communist. There wouldn’t have been wars in Vietnam and Korea, Afghanistan, and many other horrors the empire continues to enact, and we wouldn’t be living in capitalist hell in the west today.
Sorry. I thought we were dealing with getting stuff done now.
I didn’t realize you wanted to talk about alternate history.
My mistake.
No, we are not dealing with alternative history. We are dealing with the history of what the west proceeded to do after the war ended. If you’re going to talk about how many people died then you have to include all the people that the west brutally massacred during the Cold War and continues to massacre today. Because your claim is that the world order that arose out of US participating in the war was a net positive. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to help you understand this.
That’s not relevant to getting things done now.
The actual history is that Stalin wanted help form the US and took it. Anything else is alternate history.
If you want to talk about getting power away from Trump, I’m interested. Otherwise, have a nice night.
Once again, you made a claim that the less people died because the US participated in the war. And I simply pointed out that the world order that formed from that resulted in far greater human suffering. Nobody is talking about any alternative histories here. We are talking about the actual history of western depravities that followed in the wake of WW2. Let me know if that’s still unclear to you.
cough non agression pact cough
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them. But you seem kinda hellbent on specialising the one that explicitly carved up several countries that were about to be invaded a literal week before the invasions started.
None of them are viewed as much of anything because nobody ever brings them up. Yet if someone has the gall to claim that the Soviets fought (not even beat) the Nazis, fuckers like you come in to harp on about muh Muhluhtov-Ribbenslop pact.
I think your ignorance is rather showing here. “Appeasement” has literally become a filthy word politically because of those exact pacts. Except for Italy, which ended up an axis power in and of itself so I’m not quite sure wtf you think putting that in accomplished.
You are getting very weirdly het up about people acknowledging the fact that pact occurred. The USSR literally did change sides mid-war. This is fact. That doesn’t negate their part in ending the war (there is literally a saying about british intelligence, US hardware and russian blood) but to act like they were the sole saviours of europe is just as much bullshit as the americans claiming the same
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn’t contribute to the war effort at all.
It’s likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it’s estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it’s more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
LOL this guy again
It’s obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
https://www.les-crises.fr/the-successful-70-year-campaign-to-convince-people-the-usa-and-not-the-ussr-beat-hitler/
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That’s a combined 27 million, which isn’t exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn’t “win the war for the rest of the Allies” or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a “pinprick” is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were “a great help”.
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
No, it specifically talks about US lend-lease and the invasion of Europe. It’s not talking about the entire western contribution to the war.
ok sure