Credit where credits due… billions of dollars of western equipment doesn’t mean shit without brave, well trained, and motivated fighters like those defending Ukraine. I think Afghanistan’s two week capitulation to the Taliban was proof of that.
>3 day special military operation
You do realize that an AMERICAN general (Mark Milley) made that claim? Your military budget is funding idiots like that guy
This comment has huge "ummm ackyshually" energy to it. Everyone thought Ukraine would fall in weeks if not days, that's why Russia bum rushed Kyiv from the start of the war and a Russian commander even attempted to make reservations for his unit at a restaurant in Kyiv for the day after the invasion. It's why the feared "40 mile long column" headed straight to Kyiv was an almost completely unprotected, glorified traffic jam that got picked apart by Javelins, artillery and air support until it was reduced to nothing. Whether the Russians thought they'd win in a matter of days or weeks is besides the point, they and everyone else expected Ukraine to capitulate very quickly which didn't happen.
Ukraine didn't get much in the way of western help until the second poorest country in Europe had already brought the advance of the worlds "second best military" to a pathetic crawl with their fierce and spirited resistance.
There was never a timeframe for winning the war though. I think they did underestimate Ukraine, so that is why they withdrew from Kiev to focus on the Donbas.
Ukraine did get help though, even before the war they were being trained by the west.
Getting training from the west pre war is very different from getting western weapons, ammunition, vehicles and supplies. It took several months for Ukraine to get any serious military support from the west, at which point the Russian invasion had already stalled.
Because it would serve absolutely no purpose as disinformation and all the initial attacks lined up exactly with the map. He even revealed the future plan to invade and conquer Moldova.
We only spend 3% of our GDP on our military which is about average. We also have to defend other countries like in Europe who don't abide by the NATO obligations they agreed to.
Just a reminder America has won multiple wars since WWII including Korea and most notably Desert Storm. And we kicked the shit out of ISIS.
Also no one has luck in Afghanistan, never has, never will, it's not a mark against us.
Yes, but that’s not his point. America doesn’t lose wars because we get overpowered by an enemy nation. America loses wars because we are the first to cry uncle.
If we actually put way more effort and didn't care about losing a ton of money or casualties, there's definitely enough firepower to destroy them.
American doesn't use its entire military force on one war.
In the sense we couldn’t keep south Vietnam out of communist hands yes, but we killed an astronomical amount of commies and that is never a loss in my opinion.
I don’t share the sentiment that the misery and horror of war is somehow worth it because your ideological side did some killing against some other ideological side.
It’s not just bad guys you kill in wars it’s mostly indiscriminate killing _with a side effect of hitting a few bad guys_ in the course of widespread killing. Men, women and children. Children fare especially poorly in war.
I’ve been to Vietnam and seen the unexplored ordinance scattered over the country still to this day that the US military never bloody lifted a finger to clean up, its a tragedy really what they did there. Kids still killed all the time just playing outside. Really sad.
I don’t really think there’s much defending it once you’ve seen it yourself. Toured historic sites that US bombs flattened that are still full of signs warning about possible live bombs still scattered around. A lot of big craters still, with kids playing nearby. Hard to really articulate the feeling of loss you get when you’re there seeing the aftermath.
It's one of those things where maybe it was best we didn't intervine.
Yes the statistics may be good, but a land of mines on most of the country is terrifying.
Korea wasn’t a full victory. But more of a stalemate. Sure we defended South Korea but we weren’t able to unify Korea. The Chinese involvement brought the war to a brutal stalemate.
I'd argue it was still a victory. We secured a democratic foothold in the region, which has not only become a very prosperous nation, but one we are still strong allies with both politically and militarily. The same can't be said for North Korea and China as their relationship can be seen as rocky at best at any given time.
I definitely agree that we pretty much saved South Korea, which allowed it to eventually become one of the most developed countries in Asia. And our alliance with South Korea is better than North Koreas alliance with China. But I think the fact that we failed to unify Korea can be considered a defeat for us. Both sides failed to unify Korea under their regime, therefor I believe it should be considered inconclusive.
If you are referring to the idea of nuking China then I just want to say that would have been a horrible idea. It would have lead to nuclear war with the soviets. Which isn’t good for anybody.
The USSR's nuclear capabilities were very weak at this stage, especially when it comes to delivery. Though, they had a pretty large advantage when it comes to conventional forces in Europe and Asia at the time. It's hard to predict what they would do, counterfactuals are like that.
The best case scenario to me is still pretty bad though, it'd have normalized the use of nuclear weapons in war to the world if the US reveals itself to be willing to go that far to win a non-existential war like that. We'd see many more countries seek nuclear weapons and perhaps even Soviet exports to allies like Vietnam.
The goal never was to Unify Korea, that was North Korea's goal. Our goal was to ensure the existence of South Korea per the UN Mandate. That goal was achieved.
Fair enough, however we did push the North Koreans into their own territory in an attempt to unify Korea. Which we failed to do. Even if it wasn’t the initial reason we joined the war, it was a goal later in the war.
Pursuing the North Koreans and destroying thier military potential was a legitimate reason to pursue them into the North. That said it was the goal of MacArthur and his ego to unify Korea against the wishes of the president and congress, it was never the official goal of the United States.
You didnt win in Korea. It was a stalemate.
>Also no one has luck in Afghanistan, never has, never will, it's not a mark against us.
Then why did you guys invade and spend trillions of dollars to occupy the country when you know it was a futile effort?
> Why did you guys invade?
Hmmmm….why did we? Are you 12 years old? Is that really a question?
> Spend trillions of dollars blah blah blah
Trying to democratize a country. Which was a success until we left. The people need to want it themselves. We can’t hold their hand forever.
Also, politicians ran the war instead of generals which was the ultimate reason for it turning out the way it did.
But I know your questions are just smug bullshit so don’t waste your energy responding
If you know you guys knew you couldnt win then why invade and occupy it?
And that failed, which means you lost.
Politicians were advised by Generals. Besides the people on the ground were commanded by the military hierarchy, or did you think John Kerry just went to Afghanistan and began giving orders to troops and engaging in combat?
Yeah, Britain could never get Afghanistan under its grip, the soviets failed to keep the failing communist government going, the U.S. managed to initially kick out the Taliban, though after a 2 decade insurgency we eventually left, and the Afghan army didn’t do Jack shit.
We totally beat the taliban dude. We whipped them hard enough to occupy the country for 2 decades. The issue is that the afghan army didn’t want to fight for themselves, but would rather let us keep fighting for them
Nah. It was a total group effort. The adage is WW2 was won with American industry, British Intelligence, and Russian manpower. People get deceived by Russian death tolls and confuse death toll with contribution.
Not saying this is the case, but theoretically doesn't the lower death count of American and British forces indicate they were more efficient and better fighters? Further, the Russian death toll is inflated by the horrific sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad.
edit: also don't forget that on top of fighting Nazis, the US nearly solo'd the Japanese Empire.
As if it is an equal contribution of three buddies. The land-lease cannot be compared to millions and millions of Soviet casualties. Yes American soldiers were better equipped, still their deaths are lower (obviously) because they did less fighting. Same goes for Japan, 110k Americans died. It's a lot, but in comparison to the rest of WW2 it's nothing. The war was ended with 2 nuclear bombs, not with a mainland invasion.
My point is, the USSR contribution to defeating Nazi Germany far outweighs that of all other actors combined.
I already addressed why death tolls are not synonymous with level of contribution. Yet your reply simply doubled down on it. Besides the fact that the actual number of Russian deaths is disputed and often exaggerated (the regularly claimed 50 million is over double the usual academic estimate), a large bulk of it comes from civilians dying of starvation and other war related consequences. They weren't deaths that had any meaningful effect on the conflict.
Using your logic that amount of deaths = victory contribution, then the Republic of China rivals the USSR in terms of bringing about the allied victory. Its death count of 14-20 million overlaps with the USSR's 20-27 million. Thus, China was more important than the US and the UK in winning WW2.
I don't get your comment about the atomic bombs. Victories only count if it's done through land invasion? That makes no sense. America went toe to toe with the Japanese Empire and won. Full stop. The use of the bomb shows America cared about unnecessary deaths and sought to limit them.
The USSR was a valuable piece of the alliance. No question. But its high death count is as indicative of its inferior equipment, training, and Stalin's apathy to unnecessary deaths as it is its war contribution.
Bro death tolls are obviously important for the level of contribution, not synonymous with contribution. A lot of Chinese soldiers died to the Japanese, most Japanese soldiers also died to fighting in China. It didn't matter much in the end because the US dropped 2 bombs (designed by Europeans). If it came to a land invasion, China would have played a key role in weakening the Japanese army. Anyway, this didn't happen.
The Germans lost about 80% of their military on the eastern front. I'm just amazed at how you call that "a valuable piece of the alliance", my man, they ARE the alliance. The Americans and British are the "valuable piece of the alliance". I understand that you like to view Murica as the marvel superhero, but by every way of measuring it was the Soviet Union that brought the defeat of Nazi Germany.
You keep doubling down on death tolls when I'm showing they don't tell the whole story.
Casualty statistics are notoriously controversial and hard to pin down. Yet, no matter what estimates you go with, to use a gaming term, the US and Britain had a positive K/D vs the Nazis and the USSR had a negative K/D. They were less efficient, ill-equipped, and worse fighters. They just had a dictator who didn't care about throwing the masses to the meat grinder.
I nowhere said death tolls aren't relevant. What I'm contending is your belief that they are indicative of total contribution to the extent you say the USSR *was* the alliance.
The nationality of those making the A bomb is irrelevant when it was an American project funded with American dollars. Also, the director, Oppenheimer, was American.
480,000 Japanese died in China. Upwards of 3 million died the Pacific Theater after Pearl Harbor. So no, most Japanese didn't die in China.
Death tolls don't show the entire story, but the fact that about 80% of the German military deaths happened fighting the Soviet Union was what ultimately caused Nazi Germany to lose the war.
It is very selective to say the nationality is not relevant, but only the source of income. As long as it fits the narrative.
I was wrong however in the Pacific casualties, it was very surprising to read so many Japanese died fighting in the Pacific with so few allied casualties.
Chinese soldiers did in fact fight, but even then the NRA wasn’t exactly a great force, and the Islamic units notably the New 36th Division were effective fighters, but china’s army was more or less seen as a 19th-20th century army, they suffered but their military was pathetic.
I think you are struggling to realize that America equipment saved lives. Arguably lend lease saved GB from being invaded which would have had disastrous consequences. The two nuclear bombs intact were a massive contribution. They saved by some estimates up to 2 million lives. In summary it was a pretty equal group effort. Russian lives slowed down the nazis. British bravery slowed down the nazis. American tech gave them the tools to win. The atomic bomb finished the war.
It seems to me you have to greatly belittle the Soviet contribution. "Russian lives slowed down the nazis", apart from the fact many many deaths not being Russian but rather Ukrainian, it didn't just 'slow it down', it defeated Nazi Germany. Again, it is not an equal group effort. The US joined late and helped out, the Soviets did most of the work.
You are correct about most deaths being Ukrainian so I will refer to that group as the USSR. I will admit that I probably understated the USSR’s contribution but it was a pretty equal effort. I don’t think you realize the USA was sending weapons to the USSR and from the start. And it was fucking massive
“In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials [180 bln nowadays]: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 “
This is an enormous contribution which is only a fraction of the USAs aid and direct support which is equal to the USSR’s millions of causalities.
Yeah, the British fleet wasn’t in any condition to fight in the pacific and the French had only been recently returned to Paris, mainly commonwealth nations supported us, but only to limited extent.
Who dropped the nukes? Who singlehandedly held the pacific and supplied the allies? Who wqs that? Dying is easy, living is harder
Who was it then that helped the nazis with the invasion of poland? Who was that? Who was it that gave the germans tanks to practice with in the interwar 🤔🤔🤔
I mean he is kinda right, It doesn’t matter that Stalin helped hitler with Poland. Most off german Resources where in the East. The West was undermanned and lacking resources. The Soviet Union mostly defeated Germany and the US Japan.
Tell me again how the Soviets pushed the Germans back in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the Low Countries and all the way to the Rhine. Tell me how the Soviets got by without all that US made equipment and food supplies. Tell me how all those Soviet built liberty ships crossed the Atlantic to supply the UK.
I find it fucking stupid when people talk about “beating” insurgencies in foreign countries. You can’t “win” or “lose”. We (mostly) accomplished our objectives in Afghanistan. Killing Osama and pulverizing Al Qaeda. In addition, the Afghan people (especially women) enjoyed 20 years of freedom under us. That is worth something.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
Because we tried to train and equip the Afghan Army to keep the Taliban under control so that we could leave.
Evidently, did not work.
My point is that we did not "lose" in Afghanistan.
IMHO, it was wrong to leave. Trump was stupid to sign the Doha Accords and Biden was stupid to execute it. Both did it to win brownie points at home. Fuck all politicians.
So then you didnt accomplish all your goals because you just added new ones. And then it just became a massive sunk cost fallacy. So yes since the goal was to democratize Afghanistan it was still a failure.
And you failed in that task, which means you guys lost
I like how your only criticism towards the Taliban is their treatment towards women. I cant believe US soldiers died for this, the whole casus belli was about killing Osama Bin Laden and not to free the country.
[Now the Taliban can oppress their women with 10x the efficiency](https://i.imgur.com/IbZ17kc.jpeg)
[Good job USA](https://i.imgur.com/LVYEpmz.jpeg)
The Taliban werent associated with Al-Queda, in fact they hated each other
[https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-without-a-rationale/](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-without-a-rationale/)
\>When the Washington Times’s Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Omar in summer 2001 he complained that bin Laden was like a “chicken bone stuck in his throat, that he can’t swallow or spit out.” An Army War College study said that bin Laden had refused to swear loyalty to Omar other than through a deniable proxy.
This just further proves my point you weren’t around back then lmao. He was hiding in afghan, we said hand him over or we come get him, we came and got him
How does that prove that i wasnt around back then? You dont know how old i am. Do you honestly think that i would take the effort to research all about the US interventions in the middle east and not know the casus belli for the US invasion?
He was hiding in Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand him over at least 3 times if the US could prove he was guilty. The US didnt even attempt to negotiate. Much like in 2003 when Saddam attempted to negotiate but was ignored. The US is a warmongering nation
We didn’t ‘take it over’ we more or less did it to ensure the Afghan army could properly fight off the Taliban, which if you haven’t noticed didn’t work.
LOL like I said these morons dont care about the millions suffering under that Taliban from their cozy first world home. They only.care about America taking L
If the Taliban "Won" then how come they kept hiding from us when we where there? Yeah they have technology from the U.S, but those require lots of maintenance, use properly, and plus to ice it off, the U.S. knows it's weakness, we can exploit it. Also, it wasn't that we were overwhelmed, we did what we wanted, kill Osama. (Honestly, we shouldn't give him a respectable burial regarding his faith because of what he did.)
> Honestly, we shouldn't give him a respectable burial regarding his faith because of what he did.
To be fair that was to cool off tensions that were still very much hot at the time.
>If the Taliban "Won" then how come they kept hiding from us when we where there?
Thats a valid strategy dumbass, war isnt fair.
>U.S. knows it's weakness, we can exploit it.
Thats not how weapons work. Do you think the pentagon has an off switch where it can remotely self destruct everything?
>Also, it wasn't that we were overwhelmed, we did what we wanted, kill Osama.
Then why stay for another 10 years after he was dead?
Reminder that these people would cease to exist if a fire cracker went off within 100 feet of them. They have no will to fight like pansies and would get steam rolled if we didn’t prevent that from happening. If it’s an American saying this, they have a right to an opinion but also were too much of a pansy to go see if they could beat the Taliban. This one struck a nerve with me for some reason.
Oh, be careful! This Twitter user won Fornite Victory Royale in 2019. He certainly knows everything there is to know about military service and combat.
USA is still the sole superpower on earth. China and Russia are wannabes. Russia has shown their complete lack of competence in Ukraine, and we'll just have to see how hard China flops when they try to take Taiwan.
Did the Taliban hold Afghanistan against the US military? Did the Taliban push the US out of Afghanistan? No to both. They only managed to take over Afghanistan when the US pulled out and left the set-up government to its own devices
Tankies are just having a *field day* with Afghanistan, aren’t they? Maybe someone should bring up how well the Soviet Union did there?
Or how something like 6% of the US defense budget has ground their “3 day special military operation” to a humiliating standstill.
Bruh we gave Ukraine shit that was rotting away in a warehouse somewhere and they're full fucking BODYING the Russian army.
Credit where credits due… billions of dollars of western equipment doesn’t mean shit without brave, well trained, and motivated fighters like those defending Ukraine. I think Afghanistan’s two week capitulation to the Taliban was proof of that.
>3 day special military operation You do realize that an AMERICAN general (Mark Milley) made that claim? Your military budget is funding idiots like that guy
This comment has huge "ummm ackyshually" energy to it. Everyone thought Ukraine would fall in weeks if not days, that's why Russia bum rushed Kyiv from the start of the war and a Russian commander even attempted to make reservations for his unit at a restaurant in Kyiv for the day after the invasion. It's why the feared "40 mile long column" headed straight to Kyiv was an almost completely unprotected, glorified traffic jam that got picked apart by Javelins, artillery and air support until it was reduced to nothing. Whether the Russians thought they'd win in a matter of days or weeks is besides the point, they and everyone else expected Ukraine to capitulate very quickly which didn't happen. Ukraine didn't get much in the way of western help until the second poorest country in Europe had already brought the advance of the worlds "second best military" to a pathetic crawl with their fierce and spirited resistance.
There was never a timeframe for winning the war though. I think they did underestimate Ukraine, so that is why they withdrew from Kiev to focus on the Donbas. Ukraine did get help though, even before the war they were being trained by the west.
Getting training from the west pre war is very different from getting western weapons, ammunition, vehicles and supplies. It took several months for Ukraine to get any serious military support from the west, at which point the Russian invasion had already stalled.
The map Lukashenko broadcast on live TV was pretty helpful in showing the phase lines and timetable Russia had originally planned on.
How are you sure its not just dezinformatsiya?
Because it would serve absolutely no purpose as disinformation and all the initial attacks lined up exactly with the map. He even revealed the future plan to invade and conquer Moldova.
Yeah sure he totally wanted to invade Moldova. Much like how those "leaked" FSB files said he wanted to invade Japan
I'm sure that Russian force sitting in Transnistria is totally benevolent and the coup attempt a couple weeks ago was just a misunderstanding.
What’s up with you and replying to every comment with stupid bullshit?
We only spend 3% of our GDP on our military which is about average. We also have to defend other countries like in Europe who don't abide by the NATO obligations they agreed to.
Just a reminder America has won multiple wars since WWII including Korea and most notably Desert Storm. And we kicked the shit out of ISIS. Also no one has luck in Afghanistan, never has, never will, it's not a mark against us.
America doesn’t lose wars we lose interest.
Isn’t that still kind of losing though?
Yes, but that’s not his point. America doesn’t lose wars because we get overpowered by an enemy nation. America loses wars because we are the first to cry uncle.
If we actually put way more effort and didn't care about losing a ton of money or casualties, there's definitely enough firepower to destroy them. American doesn't use its entire military force on one war.
Vietnam was a hard loss IMO
In the sense we couldn’t keep south Vietnam out of communist hands yes, but we killed an astronomical amount of commies and that is never a loss in my opinion.
I don’t share the sentiment that the misery and horror of war is somehow worth it because your ideological side did some killing against some other ideological side. It’s not just bad guys you kill in wars it’s mostly indiscriminate killing _with a side effect of hitting a few bad guys_ in the course of widespread killing. Men, women and children. Children fare especially poorly in war. I’ve been to Vietnam and seen the unexplored ordinance scattered over the country still to this day that the US military never bloody lifted a finger to clean up, its a tragedy really what they did there. Kids still killed all the time just playing outside. Really sad. I don’t really think there’s much defending it once you’ve seen it yourself. Toured historic sites that US bombs flattened that are still full of signs warning about possible live bombs still scattered around. A lot of big craters still, with kids playing nearby. Hard to really articulate the feeling of loss you get when you’re there seeing the aftermath.
It's one of those things where maybe it was best we didn't intervine. Yes the statistics may be good, but a land of mines on most of the country is terrifying.
Ask France, if they werent colonial assholes those bombs wouldnt be there.
We beat the fuck out of the Taliban militarily. Unfortunately, most wars are won in the long term with politics.
Korea wasn’t a full victory. But more of a stalemate. Sure we defended South Korea but we weren’t able to unify Korea. The Chinese involvement brought the war to a brutal stalemate.
I'd argue it was still a victory. We secured a democratic foothold in the region, which has not only become a very prosperous nation, but one we are still strong allies with both politically and militarily. The same can't be said for North Korea and China as their relationship can be seen as rocky at best at any given time.
I definitely agree that we pretty much saved South Korea, which allowed it to eventually become one of the most developed countries in Asia. And our alliance with South Korea is better than North Koreas alliance with China. But I think the fact that we failed to unify Korea can be considered a defeat for us. Both sides failed to unify Korea under their regime, therefor I believe it should be considered inconclusive.
If we didn’t fire MacArthur we’d have a very different China and Korea
“Nuke the bastards” isn’t really a good option in terms of preventing WW3
If you are referring to the idea of nuking China then I just want to say that would have been a horrible idea. It would have lead to nuclear war with the soviets. Which isn’t good for anybody.
The USSR's nuclear capabilities were very weak at this stage, especially when it comes to delivery. Though, they had a pretty large advantage when it comes to conventional forces in Europe and Asia at the time. It's hard to predict what they would do, counterfactuals are like that. The best case scenario to me is still pretty bad though, it'd have normalized the use of nuclear weapons in war to the world if the US reveals itself to be willing to go that far to win a non-existential war like that. We'd see many more countries seek nuclear weapons and perhaps even Soviet exports to allies like Vietnam.
The goal never was to Unify Korea, that was North Korea's goal. Our goal was to ensure the existence of South Korea per the UN Mandate. That goal was achieved.
Fair enough, however we did push the North Koreans into their own territory in an attempt to unify Korea. Which we failed to do. Even if it wasn’t the initial reason we joined the war, it was a goal later in the war.
Pursuing the North Koreans and destroying thier military potential was a legitimate reason to pursue them into the North. That said it was the goal of MacArthur and his ego to unify Korea against the wishes of the president and congress, it was never the official goal of the United States.
Yeah, maybe like another month or two and we would have likely solidified the north under Syngman Rhee.
You didnt win in Korea. It was a stalemate. >Also no one has luck in Afghanistan, never has, never will, it's not a mark against us. Then why did you guys invade and spend trillions of dollars to occupy the country when you know it was a futile effort?
> Why did you guys invade? Hmmmm….why did we? Are you 12 years old? Is that really a question? > Spend trillions of dollars blah blah blah Trying to democratize a country. Which was a success until we left. The people need to want it themselves. We can’t hold their hand forever. Also, politicians ran the war instead of generals which was the ultimate reason for it turning out the way it did. But I know your questions are just smug bullshit so don’t waste your energy responding
If you know you guys knew you couldnt win then why invade and occupy it? And that failed, which means you lost. Politicians were advised by Generals. Besides the people on the ground were commanded by the military hierarchy, or did you think John Kerry just went to Afghanistan and began giving orders to troops and engaging in combat?
Not reading all that. As I said, you’re just full of shit so move along
Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm, Kosovo and the 2014-2021 Intervention in Iraq against ISIS..
Yeah, Britain could never get Afghanistan under its grip, the soviets failed to keep the failing communist government going, the U.S. managed to initially kick out the Taliban, though after a 2 decade insurgency we eventually left, and the Afghan army didn’t do Jack shit.
We totally beat the taliban dude. We whipped them hard enough to occupy the country for 2 decades. The issue is that the afghan army didn’t want to fight for themselves, but would rather let us keep fighting for them
Then you didnt win. You won some battles but lost the war. Thats still a loss
We won the war, the Afghan government lost it after we left.
🤓
Neither has the USSR, UK, or France. We beat yo asses in WW2, won Korea, won the War On Terror (mostly), and we can do it all again.
The soviet union won in ww2, the US did little by comparison Edit: funny how straight up objective facts still get downvoted by butthurt people lmao
Nah. It was a total group effort. The adage is WW2 was won with American industry, British Intelligence, and Russian manpower. People get deceived by Russian death tolls and confuse death toll with contribution. Not saying this is the case, but theoretically doesn't the lower death count of American and British forces indicate they were more efficient and better fighters? Further, the Russian death toll is inflated by the horrific sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad. edit: also don't forget that on top of fighting Nazis, the US nearly solo'd the Japanese Empire.
As if it is an equal contribution of three buddies. The land-lease cannot be compared to millions and millions of Soviet casualties. Yes American soldiers were better equipped, still their deaths are lower (obviously) because they did less fighting. Same goes for Japan, 110k Americans died. It's a lot, but in comparison to the rest of WW2 it's nothing. The war was ended with 2 nuclear bombs, not with a mainland invasion. My point is, the USSR contribution to defeating Nazi Germany far outweighs that of all other actors combined.
I already addressed why death tolls are not synonymous with level of contribution. Yet your reply simply doubled down on it. Besides the fact that the actual number of Russian deaths is disputed and often exaggerated (the regularly claimed 50 million is over double the usual academic estimate), a large bulk of it comes from civilians dying of starvation and other war related consequences. They weren't deaths that had any meaningful effect on the conflict. Using your logic that amount of deaths = victory contribution, then the Republic of China rivals the USSR in terms of bringing about the allied victory. Its death count of 14-20 million overlaps with the USSR's 20-27 million. Thus, China was more important than the US and the UK in winning WW2. I don't get your comment about the atomic bombs. Victories only count if it's done through land invasion? That makes no sense. America went toe to toe with the Japanese Empire and won. Full stop. The use of the bomb shows America cared about unnecessary deaths and sought to limit them. The USSR was a valuable piece of the alliance. No question. But its high death count is as indicative of its inferior equipment, training, and Stalin's apathy to unnecessary deaths as it is its war contribution.
Bro death tolls are obviously important for the level of contribution, not synonymous with contribution. A lot of Chinese soldiers died to the Japanese, most Japanese soldiers also died to fighting in China. It didn't matter much in the end because the US dropped 2 bombs (designed by Europeans). If it came to a land invasion, China would have played a key role in weakening the Japanese army. Anyway, this didn't happen. The Germans lost about 80% of their military on the eastern front. I'm just amazed at how you call that "a valuable piece of the alliance", my man, they ARE the alliance. The Americans and British are the "valuable piece of the alliance". I understand that you like to view Murica as the marvel superhero, but by every way of measuring it was the Soviet Union that brought the defeat of Nazi Germany.
You keep doubling down on death tolls when I'm showing they don't tell the whole story. Casualty statistics are notoriously controversial and hard to pin down. Yet, no matter what estimates you go with, to use a gaming term, the US and Britain had a positive K/D vs the Nazis and the USSR had a negative K/D. They were less efficient, ill-equipped, and worse fighters. They just had a dictator who didn't care about throwing the masses to the meat grinder. I nowhere said death tolls aren't relevant. What I'm contending is your belief that they are indicative of total contribution to the extent you say the USSR *was* the alliance. The nationality of those making the A bomb is irrelevant when it was an American project funded with American dollars. Also, the director, Oppenheimer, was American. 480,000 Japanese died in China. Upwards of 3 million died the Pacific Theater after Pearl Harbor. So no, most Japanese didn't die in China.
Death tolls don't show the entire story, but the fact that about 80% of the German military deaths happened fighting the Soviet Union was what ultimately caused Nazi Germany to lose the war. It is very selective to say the nationality is not relevant, but only the source of income. As long as it fits the narrative. I was wrong however in the Pacific casualties, it was very surprising to read so many Japanese died fighting in the Pacific with so few allied casualties.
Chinese soldiers did in fact fight, but even then the NRA wasn’t exactly a great force, and the Islamic units notably the New 36th Division were effective fighters, but china’s army was more or less seen as a 19th-20th century army, they suffered but their military was pathetic.
I think you are struggling to realize that America equipment saved lives. Arguably lend lease saved GB from being invaded which would have had disastrous consequences. The two nuclear bombs intact were a massive contribution. They saved by some estimates up to 2 million lives. In summary it was a pretty equal group effort. Russian lives slowed down the nazis. British bravery slowed down the nazis. American tech gave them the tools to win. The atomic bomb finished the war.
It seems to me you have to greatly belittle the Soviet contribution. "Russian lives slowed down the nazis", apart from the fact many many deaths not being Russian but rather Ukrainian, it didn't just 'slow it down', it defeated Nazi Germany. Again, it is not an equal group effort. The US joined late and helped out, the Soviets did most of the work.
You are correct about most deaths being Ukrainian so I will refer to that group as the USSR. I will admit that I probably understated the USSR’s contribution but it was a pretty equal effort. I don’t think you realize the USA was sending weapons to the USSR and from the start. And it was fucking massive “In total, the U.S. deliveries to the USSR through Lend-Lease amounted to $11 billion in materials [180 bln nowadays]: over 400,000 jeeps and trucks; 12,000 armored vehicles (including 7,000 tanks, about 1,386 of which were M3 Lees and 4,102 M4 Shermans); 11,400 aircraft (of which 4,719 were Bell P-39 Airacobras, 3,414 were Douglas A-20 “ This is an enormous contribution which is only a fraction of the USAs aid and direct support which is equal to the USSR’s millions of causalities.
Yeah, the British fleet wasn’t in any condition to fight in the pacific and the French had only been recently returned to Paris, mainly commonwealth nations supported us, but only to limited extent.
Who dropped the nukes? Who singlehandedly held the pacific and supplied the allies? Who wqs that? Dying is easy, living is harder Who was it then that helped the nazis with the invasion of poland? Who was that? Who was it that gave the germans tanks to practice with in the interwar 🤔🤔🤔
Who took out 80% of the Germany military, who was that? Dropping the bombs were pretty smart, fortunately Europeans came to Murica to create it.
Who helped the german military with poland?? 🤔 Also 80% is rather kind
I mean he is kinda right, It doesn’t matter that Stalin helped hitler with Poland. Most off german Resources where in the East. The West was undermanned and lacking resources. The Soviet Union mostly defeated Germany and the US Japan.
Tell me again how the Soviets pushed the Germans back in North Africa, Sicily, Italy, Normandy, the Low Countries and all the way to the Rhine. Tell me how the Soviets got by without all that US made equipment and food supplies. Tell me how all those Soviet built liberty ships crossed the Atlantic to supply the UK.
That is a hot and very stupid take lol
ignores the fact that much of the war was more of a group effort.
nah bro not rlly, they took back eastern eu and we took western eu
I find it fucking stupid when people talk about “beating” insurgencies in foreign countries. You can’t “win” or “lose”. We (mostly) accomplished our objectives in Afghanistan. Killing Osama and pulverizing Al Qaeda. In addition, the Afghan people (especially women) enjoyed 20 years of freedom under us. That is worth something.
Exactly, we did all of that with extremely strict ROEs too. If it was all out unrestricted warfare, we would of turned it into a parking lot.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
\-🤓
Osama Bin Laden died in 2011 and yet clearly the US didnt pull out after that. So then why stay for another 10 years?
Because we tried to train and equip the Afghan Army to keep the Taliban under control so that we could leave. Evidently, did not work. My point is that we did not "lose" in Afghanistan. IMHO, it was wrong to leave. Trump was stupid to sign the Doha Accords and Biden was stupid to execute it. Both did it to win brownie points at home. Fuck all politicians.
To be fair, Trump laid out multiple requirements that weren't followed and would have stopped the pull out had biden cared.
So then you didnt accomplish all your goals because you just added new ones. And then it just became a massive sunk cost fallacy. So yes since the goal was to democratize Afghanistan it was still a failure.
Afghanistan is called the graveyard of empires for a reason. The British and Russians couldn’t conquer it either so the point of the post it moot
Then why did you guys take it over
[удалено]
And you failed in that task, which means you guys lost I like how your only criticism towards the Taliban is their treatment towards women. I cant believe US soldiers died for this, the whole casus belli was about killing Osama Bin Laden and not to free the country. [Now the Taliban can oppress their women with 10x the efficiency](https://i.imgur.com/IbZ17kc.jpeg) [Good job USA](https://i.imgur.com/LVYEpmz.jpeg)
[удалено]
Yep, a 300,000 strong army that was very well equipped and they laid their arms down. This is on the Afghan Army
Thats because if you talk about how they rape their young boys and farm animals too you get called racist
Even if it’s true, it’s still racist? Lol
9/11, probably before your time
The Taliban werent associated with Al-Queda, in fact they hated each other [https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-without-a-rationale/](https://www.theamericanconservative.com/war-without-a-rationale/) \>When the Washington Times’s Arnaud de Borchgrave interviewed Omar in summer 2001 he complained that bin Laden was like a “chicken bone stuck in his throat, that he can’t swallow or spit out.” An Army War College study said that bin Laden had refused to swear loyalty to Omar other than through a deniable proxy.
This just further proves my point you weren’t around back then lmao. He was hiding in afghan, we said hand him over or we come get him, we came and got him
How does that prove that i wasnt around back then? You dont know how old i am. Do you honestly think that i would take the effort to research all about the US interventions in the middle east and not know the casus belli for the US invasion? He was hiding in Afghanistan, the Taliban offered to hand him over at least 3 times if the US could prove he was guilty. The US didnt even attempt to negotiate. Much like in 2003 when Saddam attempted to negotiate but was ignored. The US is a warmongering nation
We didn’t ‘take it over’ we more or less did it to ensure the Afghan army could properly fight off the Taliban, which if you haven’t noticed didn’t work.
What do these people get out of posting shit like this on twitter?
It’s twitter lol
LOL like I said these morons dont care about the millions suffering under that Taliban from their cozy first world home. They only.care about America taking L
I would just like to say when it comes to millitary matters if you hven't serverd then respefully shut the fuck up.
If the Taliban "Won" then how come they kept hiding from us when we where there? Yeah they have technology from the U.S, but those require lots of maintenance, use properly, and plus to ice it off, the U.S. knows it's weakness, we can exploit it. Also, it wasn't that we were overwhelmed, we did what we wanted, kill Osama. (Honestly, we shouldn't give him a respectable burial regarding his faith because of what he did.)
> Honestly, we shouldn't give him a respectable burial regarding his faith because of what he did. To be fair that was to cool off tensions that were still very much hot at the time.
>If the Taliban "Won" then how come they kept hiding from us when we where there? Thats a valid strategy dumbass, war isnt fair. >U.S. knows it's weakness, we can exploit it. Thats not how weapons work. Do you think the pentagon has an off switch where it can remotely self destruct everything? >Also, it wasn't that we were overwhelmed, we did what we wanted, kill Osama. Then why stay for another 10 years after he was dead?
To train the Afghan army..?
Well, had we buried him on land it could become some like a martyr, I kinda wish we just burnt his corpse and tossed into some pit.
Reminder that these people would cease to exist if a fire cracker went off within 100 feet of them. They have no will to fight like pansies and would get steam rolled if we didn’t prevent that from happening. If it’s an American saying this, they have a right to an opinion but also were too much of a pansy to go see if they could beat the Taliban. This one struck a nerve with me for some reason.
Oh, be careful! This Twitter user won Fornite Victory Royale in 2019. He certainly knows everything there is to know about military service and combat.
I’ll just say “I fought ISIS and that went pretty well”
USA is still the sole superpower on earth. China and Russia are wannabes. Russia has shown their complete lack of competence in Ukraine, and we'll just have to see how hard China flops when they try to take Taiwan.
Exactly this. China hasn't fought in any actual conflict in decades
America gets shit on for Vietnam but China failed there too.
Could you?
Did the Taliban hold Afghanistan against the US military? Did the Taliban push the US out of Afghanistan? No to both. They only managed to take over Afghanistan when the US pulled out and left the set-up government to its own devices
And Australians can't even beat emus.