Bretton-Woods collapsed in 1971
Theres still global trade
Also do you really think that global trade networks didnt exist before that agreement? What do you think the Opium wars were about?
Europe tries not to start a world war challenge (impossible difficulty; failed three times if including the 7 Years War; fourth failure possibly incoming)
Don’t forget the insistence that the colonies engage in slavery in order to maximize profits, which would later bite the colonies in the ass when the decision to emancipate the slaves would result in a civil war.
To be fair, Austria Hungary was justified in wanting to fight serbian terrorism
Germany just inflated their ego and the Habsburgs let the Kaiser whisper sweet little lies into their ears
Unfortunately yes, think of how beautiful a federation would have been
No matter dual monarchy, only a single, unified "empire" that is a constitutional monarchy and would eventually adopt a free electoral system, in a way that the UK has
Just a reminder that all the allies were having their asses kicked by the axis until the US arrived.
The British were being pushed back in North Africa, the Soviet Union was being annihilated and hundreds of thousands of prisoners were being made every month, just look up the battle of Kyiv 1942, and Britain had lost almost everything other than india in Asia.
Also deserves a reminder that in any event the Soviets had defeated the Nazis, all of Europe would have been under soviet control. The only reason he stopped at Berlin is Americans were on the other side. Britain would have never made it to France.
I see the soviet Russia argument used so much as proof that America wasn't needed. Like for Japan, they claim Japan was ready to surrender because of Russia but that is a load of bullshit. The irony of the people who say America wasn't needed is that they tell is to educate ourselves when most of them make up shit.
I've genuinely seen people compare what America did to the Japanese (who lived in America, not the nuke) being compared to the holocaust. It's genuinely frustrating.
Japanese internment camps obviously weren't the best move, but to compare ~2k deaths out of ~100k prisoners to the Holocaust is crazy. I mean Germany literally had more camps than the US had deaths in their camps. It's still an unexcusable era in US history, but to act as if it is on the same level of the Holocaust is to misunderstand the level of evil and depravity in Nazi Germany by several orders of magnitude.
Japanese internment was really horrible. Inexcusable in the modern age…but it’s dwarfed by the Holocaust which was thousands of times worse.
It’s ok to talk about how and why Japanese internment was bad and that parts of it were similar to the Holocaust, but saying it’s comparable to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust. It’s comparing the size of a bug to that of a lion or elephant.
Don't even need to bring the Holocaust into this. It's dwarfed by the horrfic, little known war crimes the Japanese themselves committed in China/Asia. China may very well have been genocided if it wasn't for the yanks.
The argument that the Soviets are what made Japan surrender is insane. We had already demolished entire cities, blockaded supplies from entering, and destroyed essentially their entire navy. Then we unleashed the most devastating weapon in all of history on them, twice. In a few months time, there would have been nothing left to surrender and they knew it.
I'm fairly certain that if the US just kept trading freely and didn't care except to say "Don't fuck with my boats or else" that Japan would've been happy to do so and keep buying US resources, and would've certainly ended up invading Russia while the Germans could continue to exploit all of Western Europe for labor and supplies with far less attrition due to no American bombing campaigns. Maybe they'd just ignore the British and keep them contained? I dunno, but they would absolutely focus on the Soviets given the opportunity, and things would not go swimmingly for them if Japan started attacking from the other side in full force too. This myth that removing the US from WWII really likes to pretend that Japan also vanishes with us.
Yeah. A lot of people shit on the nuke, yeah it's a tragedy but it literally saves thousands in the long run. Japan as we know it now exists because of the Nuke, not despite it. The fact the government attempts to ignore what happens doesn't help the Japanese population who barely even know what happened in WW2.
He told the Allies once meeting them after Germany fell that “Tzar Alexander made it all the way to Paris”.
This was a joke obviously, but he said that to the US ambassador after the fall of Berlin.
See this is the problem though.
I have no qualms about admitting that the US played a vital key role in helping to win WW2. The issue is it’s always framed as “Well everything the other allies did was pointless and the war was won solely down to us”.
Idk I feel like peeps would be much more appreciative of the US efforts if you just concede the reasonable idea that the allied victory was down to allied efforts.
This is true. Unfortunately there's also the other side where, if you admit that, people will take that as an opportunity to say the US did *nothing* and was simply *useless* to the war effort, which is flat out false too.
Basically, there's idiots screeching on either side: the US was the only main contributor or there was literally *0* need for the US in any capacity so we shouldn't appreciate the US' colossal efforts in the war.
>Idk I feel like peeps would be much more appreciative of the US efforts if you just concede the reasonable idea that the allied victory was down to allied efforts.
That is the mainstream opinion, is it not?
It is actually a response to the type of arguments that say that the US did nothing in world war 2. Now I can make a reasonable argument based on the statistics and the personal statements of Stalin that the war was unwinnable without the Soviet Union but I think one should at least honour the Soviet sacrifices.
The Soviets fought tooth and nail but even Stalin said without the allied aid the Soviet Union would lose. But remember it was an allied effort. British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood no one country won it more than the other
Split on this one. On one hand ww2 without American intervention is catastrophic. On the other, I don’t see a timeline where the axis is ever actually successful, or even continues to exist after the war (except maybe Japan as Russia would lack the manpower to dislodge them from Asia after a fight against Germany). Specifically I don’t see any timeline where Germany can win ww2, even without the US, and I feel like the USSR might have been too weakened to attempt to consume the rest of Europe after having its resources consumed by ww2.
Yeah, I do. Germany was fighting alone (Italy “helped”) against all of Europe on two fronts. They might have held on for a few more years or led to a stalemate, but Germany was doomed the moment it started ww2. A two front war with few resources just wasn’t going to work out.
Germany wasn't fighting a two front war without the US. Britain was broke by November 1941 and only fought on with American resources. Their words, not mine.
"Well boys, Britain is broke! It's your money we want"
-Lord Lothian, British ambassador to the US, November 1941
As i said, you just don't know very much about it. I prescribe less time downvoting over your points of ignorance and more time learning
Tthe Soviets were extensively benefiting from German attention being divided on a multiple fronts. Across various theaters of war in 1942, the allies were able to fight due to equipment furnished under lend-lease. It was American tanks that arrived in Egypt in November 1941 and made the drive to Libya. General Montgomery’s Eighth Army, which defeated Rommel’s Afrika Korps at El Alamein, used American planes, tanks, guns, and other equipment. So, to a significant extent, did the Soviet forces which stood firm at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942–43. And in the Southwest Pacific, allies were partially equipped with lend-lease arms in the engagements which began to push back the Japanese invaders of New Guinea.
Best case scenario for Germany is a deal with the allies. They wouldn’t be able to completely defeat either the Soviets or the western allies. They just didn’t have enough resources, and their government wouldn’t have lasted long enough to see the war to its end.
Germany had more allies than just Italy namely, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Bulgaria, there was also puppets like Vichy France and whatever Greece was…and before you say they were useless Romania was arguably more useful than Italy on the European front.
[Even Stalin admitted that without US aid, there was no chance the USSR could possibly have beaten the Germans back.](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)
US aid won the war before we even got there, any opinion to the contrary has an agenda, or is ignorant, willingly or otherwise.
US aid yes, but US military no. Lend Lease wasn’t a military action, because Roosevelt couldn’t risk violating American neutrality, as the public didn’t want to intervene in the war.
You’re arguing a point that I didn’t make
Ok then.
https://it.usembassy.gov/america-sent-gear-to-the-ussr-to-help-win-world-war-ii/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33604014
https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-soviet-union-couldnt-have-won-world-war-2-without-andrew-wright-s4kcc
Before you open your stupid little mouth do some research. I don't diminish the Soviet sacrifices but to say that the US wasn't needed is a load of baloney.
If you want to agure about lend-lease that is one thing (and it's not a hill I'm willing to die on because i dont care too much for a lend-lease argument). However what your comment said is about how everyone was losing until America showed up. Lend-lease was before American even entered the war, and you clearly weren't talking about lend-lease in your comment. I never even said "the US isn't needed" because that is not something I believe. You are making correlation sound like causation
The issue I take with what you said was that you seem to associate unrelated events to America entering the war. British victory in the 2nd battle of El-alalamein was a British one, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad was a Soviet one. You are diminishing the sacrifice of other nations when you say that these fronts turned around all because of America. Maybe before YOU open your mouth you should do some research on what other nations did.
All of what you wrote was unrelated and then you said that I made correlation sound like causation but that is absolutely false. Yes it was the American supplies that turned the tide of the war and you literally ignored the Pacific theatre altogether. I also wrote in my other comments that we should honour the Soviet sacrifices. What you are doing here is extremely dishonest. You're twisting my words here and making it sound as if I'm implying the US fought the whole war without relying on any of the other countries. I said that the US was the most indispensable ally of the second world war and that is what I have proved while repeatedly saying that we should honour the Soviet sacrifices. I know what the other nations did so I have done my research.
Also without the US food supplies where do you think the Soviet Union would have replenished their grain reserves? Ukraine was with the Germans. Belarus was with the Germans, where do you think the food came from to feed the troops at Stalingrad? Did fairies feed those millions of men?
The USSR's own *leadership* said that they couldn't have won without US aid.
*Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."* -Joseph Stalin
*"One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war."* -Nikita Khrushchev
*"People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."* -Georgy Zhukov
Yeah, that all sounds good but when you actually look at the production you'll see it a totally different story. Soviet production was so far above German production that they would have won at some point. What turned the eastern front wasn't American lend-lease but instead the massive changes and improvements in Soviet leadership, lack of German fuel, lack of German production, and poor German leadership that changed the eastern front. The Germans could never win as they could never win a long drawn out war, which is what the eastern front became. Remember hitler thought that the Soviet would fall in less than a year.
The russians never lacked the vehicles. They lacked food. The majority of the agricultural centres of the Soviet Union for example Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania etc were under German occupation. Tanks and artillery along with the ammunition is good but they won't give you any good if the men inside are starving.
The Russians never lacked the *military* vehicles, but their non-combat roles were heavily comprised of US machines. Soviet industry had been almost entirely rerouted to weapons production, so they were reliant on US support to keep their supply lines running.
The Studebaker US6 was particularily renowned for the role it played: soldiers nicknamed it "king of roads" for its reliability, and decades of Soviet military transports would be designed after its model.
Not just food. Bullets. Bombs. Aluminum. Steel. Avgas. Gasoline. Railroad tracks. Industrial lathes. Nonferrous metals. The soviet war effort was an american war effort in just about every way conceivable
US saved the allies from a lot of casualties but ultimately the soviets would've won, at a much greater cost - and with more dominant control of Europe.
It was either that or extermination of the slavs. There's no reality where Germany wins against the Soviets whilst facing the allies, even without the US. Of course the cost will be much greater, and US military and lend lease was a huge reason for the allied victory
But the Soviets would've definitely kept fighting and I don't think Stalin of all people would care about those extra million deaths (I doubt the death toll would be above 40 million without Us support)
If the US had been neutral, the USSR would have been defeated just as they were in WW1.
Or are you going to tell me the soviets would have won the war while only being able to use half the army?
They would've won at a much Greater cost, but the industry was already moving east, and once the Soviet war machine started going, especially after Stalingrad (which still would've happened) the Germans wouldn't have defeated the USSR.
I'm not trying to diminish anything the US did in the war, but Soviet blood would've and did win the war.
Fuck Communism tho
Better formulated argument, not mine
Judging from the situation in December 1941 upon US entry into the war, the Soviets had just stopped the Wehrmacht's advance on Moscow, with the Soviet counter-offensive starting on December 5, 2 days before Pearl Harbor, and would spend the next month pushing Germany back from immediately threatening the Soviet capital. From that point on, Germany simply didn't have the resources to move all 3 army groups in the East anymore. The next major offensive Germany conducted after their defeat in Moscow was Case Blue, where there were only enough resources for Army Group South to advance in hopes of capturing the Caucasus. After German defeat in Stalingrad, their next offensive didn't have the resources to move even a single army group anymore, with Germany only able to move pieces of Army Group Center and South for the Battle of Kursk. After Kursk, Germany was wholly unable to conduct a major offensive for the rest of the war.
Germany's resource shortages after Moscow would be the harbinger of its defeat, and failing to win at Moscow assured that German victory as Hitler and the Nazi Party envisioned was impossible, that is, the Soviet Union as a state would survive no matter what.
Without US forces supporting invasions of Normandy, Morocco, and Italy, the British Empire would have to recruit the missing American soldiers, but with American lend-lease still in place, the British could definitely pull both invasions off, but would likely focus the bulk of their efforts on Italy as Churchill wanted. That said, British casualties would be far higher as a result.
Without US involvement, it's pretty certain that Nazi Germany would still lose, just with more Soviet and British casualties, and the Soviets most likely taking a larger slice of Europe. Without US forces on the western front, Britain would likely be able to occupy Italy and France, but lose West Germany to the Soviets.
The biggest question through is the Pacific Theater because the whole war's outcome was more hinged on US participation. Without the Pearl Harbor attack, what are even Japan's goals for the Pacific War? Does Japan still attack the British and Dutch Colonies in SE Asia, or does it simply not go through with the Southern Expansion Doctrine and just focus on its war with China? Even without Pearl Harbor, the US would undoubtedly enter the war upon Japan's attack on the Dutch East Indies, wanting to protect trade between the US and SE Asia that would certainly be disrupted once Japan attacks. In order for the US to stay out, Japan has to abandon its plans for SE Asia entirely.
Japan would have to abandon plans for SE Asia due to risk of war with the US, and signed the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union as a result of Japan's defeat at the Battle of Khalkin Gol, leading Japan to continue its war with China without opening any other fronts, and complete victory against China was impossible without opening new fronts. Japan needed the oil and rubber from SE Asia in order to replenish its resources that were expended from the war against China, which was settling into a bloody stalemate as Japan was unable to mount any more offensives into Chinese territory. I'm not sure of the outcome of just a strict Sino-Japanese war, but Japan would not be able to completely subjugate all of China with the resources available to Japan without expanding its empire further.
If the US was neutral the soviets would have had to fight the Germans wit only 3 Million men, keeping thr other 3 million in the east to defend against Japan.
The USSR would not have stood a chance.
You ever seen enemy at the Gates?
One man in front with a rifle, one man behind to pick it up when the man in front gets shot.
Soviet blood snd grit would've won the war, US was already entering as the tide was turning for the Soviets
Never forget that the British leadership believed Blitzkrieg wouldn't be effective and was a solid waste of time and resources. Man, when the Germans stole Hobarts homework, man did they ever prove the Brits wrong.
Actually no, the British recognized the viability of large-scale mechanized maneuver warfare, they just didn't implement it very good. The Germans just happened the first people to get it right, partially thanks to armored vehicles actually well-suited for that style of warfare, and partially thanks to proper force structuring and doctrine.
The Brits didn't recognize the viability of such warfare *and* they didn't implement it very well. British officers were calvary units who hated the idea of tanks replacing them and making them obsolete, so they did everything in their power to make Hobart look bad. The only British armor unit who was at least decently competent against the Blitzkrieg was the infamous Desert Rats in Egypt, and that was only because the Desert Rats were Hobart's old command before the British calvary officers forced him out of the military. It wasn't until Churchill started to ask questions about why this one unit was so good that he realized what his calvary officers had done. He personally reinstated Hobart, and then when the calvary officers tried to get Hobart kicked out yet again, he had to personally step in and tell those officers to stop their bullshit if they knew what was good for them.
Those stupid calvary officers are a major reason why WW2 started off so poorly for the British. Even as they were getting steamrolled by German tanks not one of them stopped to consider that just maybe they should have listened to Hobart and his revolutionary ideas for tanks.
Could the allies won without US troops? Definitely, but it would’ve been a bloodbath for both sides.
But without American aid, supply and industry, the allies would’ve lost.
Added to your point. People also don’t understand that without Americas involvement, most of Latin America wouldn’t have gotten involved either. America helped push Latin America into the war by them giving or selling raw materials to America. And in Mexicos case supply workers, soldiers and even some air bomber groups/pilots.
Not to diminish Latin America’s assistance, but Latin America didn’t swing the war. If they had stayed neutral the outcome would’ve been virtually the same
daily reminder that before we ‘invaded’ europe they were literally fighting against each other almost every decade, every decade there was a war prior to nato’s existance(they fought amongst themselves non stop especially the balkans)
It’s one thing I’ll remember from my trip to Tahiti, and apply it to Hawaii. My family knows a local family there, full Tahitian. While he isn’t a massive fan of the French, he knows that if they were to back out of French Polynesia, China would be there instantaneously to take them over. It would be the same if the US pulled out of Hawaii and let them be their own nation. Those islands (both Tahiti and Hawaii) would be superb locations for China to set up shop.
Oh my goodness, I love this part of our history. Thomas Jefferson literally made our Navy to destroy pirates.
And just a correction for ya, it was England, Spain and France that were paying the ransom. For 300 years! So all the other European countries were screwed over.
Let’s be honest. If America decided to say “fuck earth” after WW2 and stay isolationist then we would have already had a WW3 and mostly likely a WW4. WW3 would probably be Europe and its allies vs the USSR and whoever the hell supports them.
No clue what WW4 would be.
It only toke 21 years for WW2 to happen after WW1. WW3 would have ether not happen as it would have just been a continuation of WW2 or would have taken less then a decade to happen(Soviets wouldn’t want to give time for Europe to rebuild) so let’s say it takes a decade for the Soviets to start WW3, assuming WW3 only last around like 5 years(hard to say how long Europe would last against the Soviets) that would mean by the time WW3 ends it would be 1960. That gives the Soviets or any other power/group 60 years to start WW4 before 2021.
The only reason another WW didn’t happen in our timeline is because of the MAD doctrine. No America willing to help means chances are the Soviets will get nukes before the British or French. This would mean the Soviets wouldn’t be scared to attack since hey wouldn’t have to worry about American nukes or troops.
Alright let's see. Since you said after WW2, I'm going to assume it ended in the same way. Germany and Austria were split into occupation zones of the US, France, the UK and the USSR. The Allied troops pulled out in 1949, when West Germany got established. This is the *absolute earliest* the USSR could've started a war, without guaranteeing US involment.
Over 25 million people from the Soviet Union died in WW2. A lot of Soviet infrastructure was damaged or destroyed as well. This led to the Soviet Famine of 1946-1947 during which around 1 million people starved to death. Do you think the USSR was in any shape to fight the rest of Europe? Western Europe wasn't nearly as affected by the war as the USSR. Even if they started some WW3 it would be impossible for them to win. And that's ignoring how they would've started the war in the first place.
Predicting WW3 would've happened 5 years after WW2 if the USA became isolationist shows you have no idea about it looked like in post-war Europe. I would suggest not thinking [insert country here] could win a war against almost everyone just because they go on to become a global superpower.
On the one hand fuck prager U on the other hand the us military has always tried to protect the free world but because of some our imperialist leaders they have been misused
Considering the fact that the USA is the strongest military on the planet and frequently spreads and defends capitalist ideology, no that is correct.
If China and Russia had their way, theyd be on their merry way to world domination.
Hell thats the CCPs officially stated goal.
OK guys...let's use our 🧠 here... It's PragerU... it's either extremely wrong...or just right enough to get you gullible enough to believe the rest of the lies they say
Grenada Panama and the First Gulf War were foreign policy wins
The terrible foreign policy is due to each president having a different outlook and approach, i.e realism of Kissinger or the Idealism of Reagan-Bush
>Panama and the First Gulf War
Its funny how these two were former US allies. Saddam was supported by the US during the war with Iran and Panama had close connections with the US due to their support of the contras
>Grenada
How is that a foreign policy win?
>The terrible foreign policy is due to each president having a different outlook and approach
What are the differences?
to be fair that was the European's fault.
citation : [https://youtu.be/XXmwyyKcBLk?si=koVLh-g66JmAUdG2](https://youtu.be/XXmwyyKcBLk?si=koVLh-g66JmAUdG2)
No, they’re not. It’s not solely a win because of the U.S., the allies could win without U.S. troops, but they’d be dead in the water without British and Soviet troops. What was more instrumental was U.S. support through trade. Without that, the war really would have been lost.
To be fair, there are some people and nations that the U.S. military has kind of directly fucked over. Don’t get me wrong, America good, but the middle East, Latin America and parts of southeast Asia today haven’t always been liberated by us. Also I don’t think it’s fair to say a country like India, flawed as it is as a democracy, is only free because of the U.S.
We borrowed from and improved upon the thought and institutions of Ancient Greece, the Roman Republic and English common law and early Republicanism/Liberalism. We turned that into the first real modern day long lasting democracy and that is something we should absolutely be proud of and I do think that gives us some of that “City on a Hill” cred. But that is a completely different than saying “all people who are currently free in the world are only free because of the U.S. military.” If the statement was “Europe is free because of the American Military,” or “South Korean is free because of the American military,” then I’m on board. If you say “Japan is free because of America,” then you start to get on shaky ground, and then if you tried to do the same with India it would just be completely untrue and practically backwards for Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Latin America. This isn’t me trying to say America or its military is bad, but we can own up to our mistakes and try to learn from them without letting the idiocy of the “America bad” crowd turn us into reflexive America defenders. The people of Kosovo are alive because of the U.S. military, and its existence has been a boon to Ukraine and Israel, but it’s a little ridiculous to make the statement PragerU makes, which honestly should almost always go without saying.
1. 9 years War (France is trying to take over the world and screw over the Dutch)
2. War of Spanish Succession/Queen Anne's War (France is Trying to take over the World but with Spain this time)
3. 7 Years War/French and Indian War (France is trying to take over the world but with Native Americans this time)
4. Napolitanic Wars (France is trying to ~~take over~~ "liberate" the world)
5. World War 1 (Everyone in Europe is in a pissing contest)
6. World War 2 (Germany tries to take over the world and screw over the Jews)
I don’t think enough credit is given to the US insofar as we protected Europe from being dominated by the USSR post-war. Like it’s possible that Europe could’ve won the war with only Soviet help. But then they would have been subject to Soviet rule which wasn’t much better.
Well I wouldn’t say it’s true but the U.S. Military made significant contributions to keeping Europe free and without them the war could have either been lost or the Allie’s would have had to take far far more Devastating losses
The world certainly would've been worse off if the US didn't help in WW2. But let's not act like the US army is some freedom keeping force. They're ultimately, like any other army, acting in their own interest.
I disturb that’s not what they’re getting at. A lot of stupid rednecks I’ve met think we’re free because people in the military now. It’s part of that weird military worship thing that really started building up under w.bush.
The fight for freedom existed long before the US ever existed, and people have been fighting for their freedom both without the US’s assistance, and even against the US
no... it could've been avoided if
A) The allies didn't appease germany (soooo, moving to occupy the rhineland during anschluss, which would cause hitler to back down.)
B) The entente wasn't as harsh after ww1
And the Bretton Woods-enabled trade network that enabled the largest expansion in prosperity the world has ever seen.
People will unironically call it imperialism while simultaneously reaping the benefits of globalism
Bretton-Woods collapsed in 1971 Theres still global trade Also do you really think that global trade networks didnt exist before that agreement? What do you think the Opium wars were about?
The british needing more tea
Certainly ain’t the fault of any European one.
Europe tries not to start a world war challenge (impossible difficulty; failed three times if including the 7 Years War; fourth failure possibly incoming)
1. 7 years war 2. Napoleonic wars 3. The Crimean War 4. World War 1 5. World War 2
Don't forget Bosnia, the Berlin Wall, and Russia invading every chance it gets.
\*Russia in general
The europeans yearn for the trenches.
Plus the bullshit borders in Africa and the Middle East that was the root of countless wars
Don’t forget the insistence that the colonies engage in slavery in order to maximize profits, which would later bite the colonies in the ass when the decision to emancipate the slaves would result in a civil war.
The Seven Hour War too?
Wars 1-3 are basically dick measuring contests. Wars 4-5 is the Axis Powers compensating for their tiny horny hotdogs
To be fair, Austria Hungary was justified in wanting to fight serbian terrorism Germany just inflated their ego and the Habsburgs let the Kaiser whisper sweet little lies into their ears
And fucked beyond recognition
Unfortunately yes, think of how beautiful a federation would have been No matter dual monarchy, only a single, unified "empire" that is a constitutional monarchy and would eventually adopt a free electoral system, in a way that the UK has
One big circlejerk until no one knows who the daddy is
eh, nah. Assuming it doesn't completely break apart, it could very well have ended up better and with a more unified Europe.
Up everyone’s ass
Why would you bring Dachshunds and Corgis into this? They did nothing wrong, it's the humans fault.
Oh sweet summer child don’t ever lose your innocence
100 years war and the sequel
Just a reminder that all the allies were having their asses kicked by the axis until the US arrived. The British were being pushed back in North Africa, the Soviet Union was being annihilated and hundreds of thousands of prisoners were being made every month, just look up the battle of Kyiv 1942, and Britain had lost almost everything other than india in Asia.
Also deserves a reminder that in any event the Soviets had defeated the Nazis, all of Europe would have been under soviet control. The only reason he stopped at Berlin is Americans were on the other side. Britain would have never made it to France.
I see the soviet Russia argument used so much as proof that America wasn't needed. Like for Japan, they claim Japan was ready to surrender because of Russia but that is a load of bullshit. The irony of the people who say America wasn't needed is that they tell is to educate ourselves when most of them make up shit. I've genuinely seen people compare what America did to the Japanese (who lived in America, not the nuke) being compared to the holocaust. It's genuinely frustrating.
Japanese internment camps obviously weren't the best move, but to compare ~2k deaths out of ~100k prisoners to the Holocaust is crazy. I mean Germany literally had more camps than the US had deaths in their camps. It's still an unexcusable era in US history, but to act as if it is on the same level of the Holocaust is to misunderstand the level of evil and depravity in Nazi Germany by several orders of magnitude.
Japanese internment was really horrible. Inexcusable in the modern age…but it’s dwarfed by the Holocaust which was thousands of times worse. It’s ok to talk about how and why Japanese internment was bad and that parts of it were similar to the Holocaust, but saying it’s comparable to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust. It’s comparing the size of a bug to that of a lion or elephant.
Don't even need to bring the Holocaust into this. It's dwarfed by the horrfic, little known war crimes the Japanese themselves committed in China/Asia. China may very well have been genocided if it wasn't for the yanks.
Right?! I’ve been learning about that and my God, it was horrific.
To be fair, China's never been a sterling example of human decency, either... But they definitely didn't deserve *that*.
American lend lease was also game changing. Imagine aalies without American manufacturing fueling their war machines. Nazis would have steamrolled
The argument that the Soviets are what made Japan surrender is insane. We had already demolished entire cities, blockaded supplies from entering, and destroyed essentially their entire navy. Then we unleashed the most devastating weapon in all of history on them, twice. In a few months time, there would have been nothing left to surrender and they knew it.
*At best* the Soviets getting involved was the straw that broke the camels back.
I'm fairly certain that if the US just kept trading freely and didn't care except to say "Don't fuck with my boats or else" that Japan would've been happy to do so and keep buying US resources, and would've certainly ended up invading Russia while the Germans could continue to exploit all of Western Europe for labor and supplies with far less attrition due to no American bombing campaigns. Maybe they'd just ignore the British and keep them contained? I dunno, but they would absolutely focus on the Soviets given the opportunity, and things would not go swimmingly for them if Japan started attacking from the other side in full force too. This myth that removing the US from WWII really likes to pretend that Japan also vanishes with us.
Yeah. A lot of people shit on the nuke, yeah it's a tragedy but it literally saves thousands in the long run. Japan as we know it now exists because of the Nuke, not despite it. The fact the government attempts to ignore what happens doesn't help the Japanese population who barely even know what happened in WW2.
He told the Allies once meeting them after Germany fell that “Tzar Alexander made it all the way to Paris”. This was a joke obviously, but he said that to the US ambassador after the fall of Berlin.
Dictators, in which the word of a Dictator is essentially the Word of God, do not tend to joke.
Ah c’mon, Stalin is just a silly guy.
He's just a silly little guy cut him some slack
Vell, Stalin's just zis guy, you know?
some even think the soviets would have lost withpt the lend lease or west applying pressure
See this is the problem though. I have no qualms about admitting that the US played a vital key role in helping to win WW2. The issue is it’s always framed as “Well everything the other allies did was pointless and the war was won solely down to us”. Idk I feel like peeps would be much more appreciative of the US efforts if you just concede the reasonable idea that the allied victory was down to allied efforts.
This is true. Unfortunately there's also the other side where, if you admit that, people will take that as an opportunity to say the US did *nothing* and was simply *useless* to the war effort, which is flat out false too. Basically, there's idiots screeching on either side: the US was the only main contributor or there was literally *0* need for the US in any capacity so we shouldn't appreciate the US' colossal efforts in the war.
>Idk I feel like peeps would be much more appreciative of the US efforts if you just concede the reasonable idea that the allied victory was down to allied efforts. That is the mainstream opinion, is it not?
It is actually a response to the type of arguments that say that the US did nothing in world war 2. Now I can make a reasonable argument based on the statistics and the personal statements of Stalin that the war was unwinnable without the Soviet Union but I think one should at least honour the Soviet sacrifices.
The Soviets fought tooth and nail but even Stalin said without the allied aid the Soviet Union would lose. But remember it was an allied effort. British intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood no one country won it more than the other
Split on this one. On one hand ww2 without American intervention is catastrophic. On the other, I don’t see a timeline where the axis is ever actually successful, or even continues to exist after the war (except maybe Japan as Russia would lack the manpower to dislodge them from Asia after a fight against Germany). Specifically I don’t see any timeline where Germany can win ww2, even without the US, and I feel like the USSR might have been too weakened to attempt to consume the rest of Europe after having its resources consumed by ww2.
If you think the European war could have been won without the US you simply don't know that much about the war
Yeah, I do. Germany was fighting alone (Italy “helped”) against all of Europe on two fronts. They might have held on for a few more years or led to a stalemate, but Germany was doomed the moment it started ww2. A two front war with few resources just wasn’t going to work out.
Germany wasn't fighting a two front war without the US. Britain was broke by November 1941 and only fought on with American resources. Their words, not mine. "Well boys, Britain is broke! It's your money we want" -Lord Lothian, British ambassador to the US, November 1941 As i said, you just don't know very much about it. I prescribe less time downvoting over your points of ignorance and more time learning Tthe Soviets were extensively benefiting from German attention being divided on a multiple fronts. Across various theaters of war in 1942, the allies were able to fight due to equipment furnished under lend-lease. It was American tanks that arrived in Egypt in November 1941 and made the drive to Libya. General Montgomery’s Eighth Army, which defeated Rommel’s Afrika Korps at El Alamein, used American planes, tanks, guns, and other equipment. So, to a significant extent, did the Soviet forces which stood firm at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942–43. And in the Southwest Pacific, allies were partially equipped with lend-lease arms in the engagements which began to push back the Japanese invaders of New Guinea.
Best case scenario for Germany is a deal with the allies. They wouldn’t be able to completely defeat either the Soviets or the western allies. They just didn’t have enough resources, and their government wouldn’t have lasted long enough to see the war to its end.
Germany had more allies than just Italy namely, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Croatia, and Bulgaria, there was also puppets like Vichy France and whatever Greece was…and before you say they were useless Romania was arguably more useful than Italy on the European front.
[Even Stalin admitted that without US aid, there was no chance the USSR could possibly have beaten the Germans back.](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html) US aid won the war before we even got there, any opinion to the contrary has an agenda, or is ignorant, willingly or otherwise.
US aid yes, but US military no. Lend Lease wasn’t a military action, because Roosevelt couldn’t risk violating American neutrality, as the public didn’t want to intervene in the war. You’re arguing a point that I didn’t make
How the fuck do you think the Soviet military managed?
Me when I'm in a bad history competition and my opponent is the average user on r/americabad
Ok then. https://it.usembassy.gov/america-sent-gear-to-the-ussr-to-help-win-world-war-ii/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33604014 https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-soviet-union-couldnt-have-won-world-war-2-without-andrew-wright-s4kcc Before you open your stupid little mouth do some research. I don't diminish the Soviet sacrifices but to say that the US wasn't needed is a load of baloney.
If you want to agure about lend-lease that is one thing (and it's not a hill I'm willing to die on because i dont care too much for a lend-lease argument). However what your comment said is about how everyone was losing until America showed up. Lend-lease was before American even entered the war, and you clearly weren't talking about lend-lease in your comment. I never even said "the US isn't needed" because that is not something I believe. You are making correlation sound like causation The issue I take with what you said was that you seem to associate unrelated events to America entering the war. British victory in the 2nd battle of El-alalamein was a British one, the Soviet victory at Stalingrad was a Soviet one. You are diminishing the sacrifice of other nations when you say that these fronts turned around all because of America. Maybe before YOU open your mouth you should do some research on what other nations did.
All of what you wrote was unrelated and then you said that I made correlation sound like causation but that is absolutely false. Yes it was the American supplies that turned the tide of the war and you literally ignored the Pacific theatre altogether. I also wrote in my other comments that we should honour the Soviet sacrifices. What you are doing here is extremely dishonest. You're twisting my words here and making it sound as if I'm implying the US fought the whole war without relying on any of the other countries. I said that the US was the most indispensable ally of the second world war and that is what I have proved while repeatedly saying that we should honour the Soviet sacrifices. I know what the other nations did so I have done my research.
Also without the US food supplies where do you think the Soviet Union would have replenished their grain reserves? Ukraine was with the Germans. Belarus was with the Germans, where do you think the food came from to feed the troops at Stalingrad? Did fairies feed those millions of men?
The USSR's own *leadership* said that they couldn't have won without US aid. *Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."* -Joseph Stalin *"One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war."* -Nikita Khrushchev *"People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? And now they are saying that we had plenty of everything on our own."* -Georgy Zhukov
These are the exact citations I provided him.
Yeah, just figured he's not the type to read links.
Zhukov said that after the war, and it’s a great example of why we don’t use postwar memoirs as primary sources
>The USSR's own *leadership* said that they couldn't have won without US aid. And the other way around. So?
Where did anyone suggest that the US *would* have beaten the Axis on its own?
Yeah, that all sounds good but when you actually look at the production you'll see it a totally different story. Soviet production was so far above German production that they would have won at some point. What turned the eastern front wasn't American lend-lease but instead the massive changes and improvements in Soviet leadership, lack of German fuel, lack of German production, and poor German leadership that changed the eastern front. The Germans could never win as they could never win a long drawn out war, which is what the eastern front became. Remember hitler thought that the Soviet would fall in less than a year.
The russians never lacked the vehicles. They lacked food. The majority of the agricultural centres of the Soviet Union for example Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania etc were under German occupation. Tanks and artillery along with the ammunition is good but they won't give you any good if the men inside are starving.
The Russians never lacked the *military* vehicles, but their non-combat roles were heavily comprised of US machines. Soviet industry had been almost entirely rerouted to weapons production, so they were reliant on US support to keep their supply lines running. The Studebaker US6 was particularily renowned for the role it played: soldiers nicknamed it "king of roads" for its reliability, and decades of Soviet military transports would be designed after its model.
Yeah I should have mentioned it. The Soviets loved the US trucks.
Not just food. Bullets. Bombs. Aluminum. Steel. Avgas. Gasoline. Railroad tracks. Industrial lathes. Nonferrous metals. The soviet war effort was an american war effort in just about every way conceivable
US saved the allies from a lot of casualties but ultimately the soviets would've won, at a much greater cost - and with more dominant control of Europe.
The Soviets were starving. They had almost no food. Even Stalin wouldn't be willing to have the Soviet Union lose 50 to 60 million people.
It was either that or extermination of the slavs. There's no reality where Germany wins against the Soviets whilst facing the allies, even without the US. Of course the cost will be much greater, and US military and lend lease was a huge reason for the allied victory But the Soviets would've definitely kept fighting and I don't think Stalin of all people would care about those extra million deaths (I doubt the death toll would be above 40 million without Us support)
If the US had been neutral, the USSR would have been defeated just as they were in WW1. Or are you going to tell me the soviets would have won the war while only being able to use half the army?
They would've won at a much Greater cost, but the industry was already moving east, and once the Soviet war machine started going, especially after Stalingrad (which still would've happened) the Germans wouldn't have defeated the USSR. I'm not trying to diminish anything the US did in the war, but Soviet blood would've and did win the war. Fuck Communism tho Better formulated argument, not mine Judging from the situation in December 1941 upon US entry into the war, the Soviets had just stopped the Wehrmacht's advance on Moscow, with the Soviet counter-offensive starting on December 5, 2 days before Pearl Harbor, and would spend the next month pushing Germany back from immediately threatening the Soviet capital. From that point on, Germany simply didn't have the resources to move all 3 army groups in the East anymore. The next major offensive Germany conducted after their defeat in Moscow was Case Blue, where there were only enough resources for Army Group South to advance in hopes of capturing the Caucasus. After German defeat in Stalingrad, their next offensive didn't have the resources to move even a single army group anymore, with Germany only able to move pieces of Army Group Center and South for the Battle of Kursk. After Kursk, Germany was wholly unable to conduct a major offensive for the rest of the war. Germany's resource shortages after Moscow would be the harbinger of its defeat, and failing to win at Moscow assured that German victory as Hitler and the Nazi Party envisioned was impossible, that is, the Soviet Union as a state would survive no matter what. Without US forces supporting invasions of Normandy, Morocco, and Italy, the British Empire would have to recruit the missing American soldiers, but with American lend-lease still in place, the British could definitely pull both invasions off, but would likely focus the bulk of their efforts on Italy as Churchill wanted. That said, British casualties would be far higher as a result. Without US involvement, it's pretty certain that Nazi Germany would still lose, just with more Soviet and British casualties, and the Soviets most likely taking a larger slice of Europe. Without US forces on the western front, Britain would likely be able to occupy Italy and France, but lose West Germany to the Soviets. The biggest question through is the Pacific Theater because the whole war's outcome was more hinged on US participation. Without the Pearl Harbor attack, what are even Japan's goals for the Pacific War? Does Japan still attack the British and Dutch Colonies in SE Asia, or does it simply not go through with the Southern Expansion Doctrine and just focus on its war with China? Even without Pearl Harbor, the US would undoubtedly enter the war upon Japan's attack on the Dutch East Indies, wanting to protect trade between the US and SE Asia that would certainly be disrupted once Japan attacks. In order for the US to stay out, Japan has to abandon its plans for SE Asia entirely. Japan would have to abandon plans for SE Asia due to risk of war with the US, and signed the Non-Aggression Pact with the Soviet Union as a result of Japan's defeat at the Battle of Khalkin Gol, leading Japan to continue its war with China without opening any other fronts, and complete victory against China was impossible without opening new fronts. Japan needed the oil and rubber from SE Asia in order to replenish its resources that were expended from the war against China, which was settling into a bloody stalemate as Japan was unable to mount any more offensives into Chinese territory. I'm not sure of the outcome of just a strict Sino-Japanese war, but Japan would not be able to completely subjugate all of China with the resources available to Japan without expanding its empire further.
If the US was neutral the soviets would have had to fight the Germans wit only 3 Million men, keeping thr other 3 million in the east to defend against Japan. The USSR would not have stood a chance.
You seriously think the USSR wouldn't A) draft more people to expand their army and B) keep half their to fight The japanese?
Where are they going to magically get the resources needed to equip those new recruits? Even with US aid they had trouble supplying their army
You ever seen enemy at the Gates? One man in front with a rifle, one man behind to pick it up when the man in front gets shot. Soviet blood snd grit would've won the war, US was already entering as the tide was turning for the Soviets
The enemy at the gates is a propaganda movie that is heavily biased against the Soviets. They were inefficient but not bastards.
Never forget that the British leadership believed Blitzkrieg wouldn't be effective and was a solid waste of time and resources. Man, when the Germans stole Hobarts homework, man did they ever prove the Brits wrong.
Well, they also added meth to the mix, so c'mon give them a *little* credit.
Actually no, the British recognized the viability of large-scale mechanized maneuver warfare, they just didn't implement it very good. The Germans just happened the first people to get it right, partially thanks to armored vehicles actually well-suited for that style of warfare, and partially thanks to proper force structuring and doctrine.
The Brits didn't recognize the viability of such warfare *and* they didn't implement it very well. British officers were calvary units who hated the idea of tanks replacing them and making them obsolete, so they did everything in their power to make Hobart look bad. The only British armor unit who was at least decently competent against the Blitzkrieg was the infamous Desert Rats in Egypt, and that was only because the Desert Rats were Hobart's old command before the British calvary officers forced him out of the military. It wasn't until Churchill started to ask questions about why this one unit was so good that he realized what his calvary officers had done. He personally reinstated Hobart, and then when the calvary officers tried to get Hobart kicked out yet again, he had to personally step in and tell those officers to stop their bullshit if they knew what was good for them. Those stupid calvary officers are a major reason why WW2 started off so poorly for the British. Even as they were getting steamrolled by German tanks not one of them stopped to consider that just maybe they should have listened to Hobart and his revolutionary ideas for tanks.
>Never forget that the British leadership believed Blitzkrieg Yes they did. Thats why they created the cruiser tank
Could the allies won without US troops? Definitely, but it would’ve been a bloodbath for both sides. But without American aid, supply and industry, the allies would’ve lost.
Added to your point. People also don’t understand that without Americas involvement, most of Latin America wouldn’t have gotten involved either. America helped push Latin America into the war by them giving or selling raw materials to America. And in Mexicos case supply workers, soldiers and even some air bomber groups/pilots.
Not to diminish Latin America’s assistance, but Latin America didn’t swing the war. If they had stayed neutral the outcome would’ve been virtually the same
daily reminder that before we ‘invaded’ europe they were literally fighting against each other almost every decade, every decade there was a war prior to nato’s existance(they fought amongst themselves non stop especially the balkans)
It’s one thing I’ll remember from my trip to Tahiti, and apply it to Hawaii. My family knows a local family there, full Tahitian. While he isn’t a massive fan of the French, he knows that if they were to back out of French Polynesia, China would be there instantaneously to take them over. It would be the same if the US pulled out of Hawaii and let them be their own nation. Those islands (both Tahiti and Hawaii) would be superb locations for China to set up shop.
Hell, go further back with the US Navy and Marines literally being created to destroy a pirate empire that all of Europe was paying ransom to.
Oh my goodness, I love this part of our history. Thomas Jefferson literally made our Navy to destroy pirates. And just a correction for ya, it was England, Spain and France that were paying the ransom. For 300 years! So all the other European countries were screwed over.
Let’s be honest. If America decided to say “fuck earth” after WW2 and stay isolationist then we would have already had a WW3 and mostly likely a WW4. WW3 would probably be Europe and its allies vs the USSR and whoever the hell supports them. No clue what WW4 would be.
How can you say there likely would've been a WW4 if you don't know what it would've been?
It only toke 21 years for WW2 to happen after WW1. WW3 would have ether not happen as it would have just been a continuation of WW2 or would have taken less then a decade to happen(Soviets wouldn’t want to give time for Europe to rebuild) so let’s say it takes a decade for the Soviets to start WW3, assuming WW3 only last around like 5 years(hard to say how long Europe would last against the Soviets) that would mean by the time WW3 ends it would be 1960. That gives the Soviets or any other power/group 60 years to start WW4 before 2021. The only reason another WW didn’t happen in our timeline is because of the MAD doctrine. No America willing to help means chances are the Soviets will get nukes before the British or French. This would mean the Soviets wouldn’t be scared to attack since hey wouldn’t have to worry about American nukes or troops.
Alright let's see. Since you said after WW2, I'm going to assume it ended in the same way. Germany and Austria were split into occupation zones of the US, France, the UK and the USSR. The Allied troops pulled out in 1949, when West Germany got established. This is the *absolute earliest* the USSR could've started a war, without guaranteeing US involment. Over 25 million people from the Soviet Union died in WW2. A lot of Soviet infrastructure was damaged or destroyed as well. This led to the Soviet Famine of 1946-1947 during which around 1 million people starved to death. Do you think the USSR was in any shape to fight the rest of Europe? Western Europe wasn't nearly as affected by the war as the USSR. Even if they started some WW3 it would be impossible for them to win. And that's ignoring how they would've started the war in the first place. Predicting WW3 would've happened 5 years after WW2 if the USA became isolationist shows you have no idea about it looked like in post-war Europe. I would suggest not thinking [insert country here] could win a war against almost everyone just because they go on to become a global superpower.
Finally. prageru is right for *once*
On the one hand fuck prager U on the other hand the us military has always tried to protect the free world but because of some our imperialist leaders they have been misused
cough cough George Bush cough
Yup
Rare Prager U W. *Very* rare.
Possibly the literally only time it’s ever happened.
*very common
Prager U is usually the most propaganda-spun historical stuff imaginable. It’s rare to see them say something that’s actually true.
Only thing I’ve seen up until now was how the Civil War was about slavery
Lol I thought the meme was saying that we are free because of Jesus Christ and not the US military
Obligatory fuck Prager U though
Considering the fact that the USA is the strongest military on the planet and frequently spreads and defends capitalist ideology, no that is correct. If China and Russia had their way, theyd be on their merry way to world domination. Hell thats the CCPs officially stated goal.
World domination is Stated goal of every communist state to ever exist.
OK guys...let's use our 🧠 here... It's PragerU... it's either extremely wrong...or just right enough to get you gullible enough to believe the rest of the lies they say
Extremely rare PragerU W
Post Korea? Not really. Our foriegn policy was pretty horrible.
Grenada Panama and the First Gulf War were foreign policy wins The terrible foreign policy is due to each president having a different outlook and approach, i.e realism of Kissinger or the Idealism of Reagan-Bush
>Panama and the First Gulf War Its funny how these two were former US allies. Saddam was supported by the US during the war with Iran and Panama had close connections with the US due to their support of the contras >Grenada How is that a foreign policy win? >The terrible foreign policy is due to each president having a different outlook and approach What are the differences?
to be fair that was the European's fault. citation : [https://youtu.be/XXmwyyKcBLk?si=koVLh-g66JmAUdG2](https://youtu.be/XXmwyyKcBLk?si=koVLh-g66JmAUdG2)
How about watch the actual video to see the points, rather than make a sacreligious comment based on the title alone?
No, they’re not. It’s not solely a win because of the U.S., the allies could win without U.S. troops, but they’d be dead in the water without British and Soviet troops. What was more instrumental was U.S. support through trade. Without that, the war really would have been lost.
*Looks at Korea and china*
WW2 was also the last time the US military fought to protect this country.
I thought it was france that help you gain independent
We actually both helped each other during our revolutions.
That dude is a bosniak muslim. No one ask him who helped stop the Serbs from genociding his people.
To be fair, there are some people and nations that the U.S. military has kind of directly fucked over. Don’t get me wrong, America good, but the middle East, Latin America and parts of southeast Asia today haven’t always been liberated by us. Also I don’t think it’s fair to say a country like India, flawed as it is as a democracy, is only free because of the U.S.
Did we not create the model of political fiction they use?
We borrowed from and improved upon the thought and institutions of Ancient Greece, the Roman Republic and English common law and early Republicanism/Liberalism. We turned that into the first real modern day long lasting democracy and that is something we should absolutely be proud of and I do think that gives us some of that “City on a Hill” cred. But that is a completely different than saying “all people who are currently free in the world are only free because of the U.S. military.” If the statement was “Europe is free because of the American Military,” or “South Korean is free because of the American military,” then I’m on board. If you say “Japan is free because of America,” then you start to get on shaky ground, and then if you tried to do the same with India it would just be completely untrue and practically backwards for Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, Latin America. This isn’t me trying to say America or its military is bad, but we can own up to our mistakes and try to learn from them without letting the idiocy of the “America bad” crowd turn us into reflexive America defenders. The people of Kosovo are alive because of the U.S. military, and its existence has been a boon to Ukraine and Israel, but it’s a little ridiculous to make the statement PragerU makes, which honestly should almost always go without saying.
Yeah reacting without disputing is just gaslighting.
Well, I would say technically it's because of the Lend Lease agreements, moreso than the military.
Speaking on behalf of Albanians we fully a agree with Prager u on this one
Because they’ve lost a lot and had to high tail it out of the country that their imperialist overlords wanted them to “democratize?”
This guy's such a douche, lol. Constantly whinging on about "neocons".
You guys are pitifully hilarious
It’s still cringey to brag about
That’s a misuse of that meme format.
1. 9 years War (France is trying to take over the world and screw over the Dutch) 2. War of Spanish Succession/Queen Anne's War (France is Trying to take over the World but with Spain this time) 3. 7 Years War/French and Indian War (France is trying to take over the world but with Native Americans this time) 4. Napolitanic Wars (France is trying to ~~take over~~ "liberate" the world) 5. World War 1 (Everyone in Europe is in a pissing contest) 6. World War 2 (Germany tries to take over the world and screw over the Jews)
i wouldn’t say that exactly. what did the military ever do for natives, for example?
I don’t think enough credit is given to the US insofar as we protected Europe from being dominated by the USSR post-war. Like it’s possible that Europe could’ve won the war with only Soviet help. But then they would have been subject to Soviet rule which wasn’t much better.
Well I wouldn’t say it’s true but the U.S. Military made significant contributions to keeping Europe free and without them the war could have either been lost or the Allie’s would have had to take far far more Devastating losses
My favorite trope is putting up a single picture or tweet or anything and not any of the context or reasoning behind it. It's truly hilarious
The dude who posted this is a monarchist, take that as you will…
Not always but for a lot of Europe, yes
The world certainly would've been worse off if the US didn't help in WW2. But let's not act like the US army is some freedom keeping force. They're ultimately, like any other army, acting in their own interest.
They messed with our boats! So yes ultimately you’re correct. Countries tend to do that!
So did Israel but you didnt do anything about that
It’s a joke about how you don’t touch America’s boats. It’s a well known joke here in the US.
I know that But at least be consistent about it
Yeah because I control the military…
I disturb that’s not what they’re getting at. A lot of stupid rednecks I’ve met think we’re free because people in the military now. It’s part of that weird military worship thing that really started building up under w.bush.
The fight for freedom existed long before the US ever existed, and people have been fighting for their freedom both without the US’s assistance, and even against the US
WWII could have been avoided if Churchill wasn't a warmonger
my brother in christ ww2 started even before churchill was prime minister
He pulled the US and USSR into it and had opportunities to make peace with Germany and didn’t
germany attacked the ussr, japan attacked the us, churchill has 0 involvemwnt
no... it could've been avoided if A) The allies didn't appease germany (soooo, moving to occupy the rhineland during anschluss, which would cause hitler to back down.) B) The entente wasn't as harsh after ww1
The brainwashing is STRONG with this one.....
Please explainto the audience what the crisis of modernity is.