I never said the were bigger in magnitude. Your strawmanning to cover up your mistake.
German failure to conquer Britain has little to do with the Soviets. In the end the allies including the Soviets benefitted each other by opening a second front respectively.



He is 100% wrong.
By the way how much further West could the Germans go in 1941?
I know by that you mean Britain but that simply was not feasible for the Germans.
On account of the British navy controlling the North Sea and English Channel but mainly because it lost the air war.
Hitler abandoned operation Sealion, the German plan to invade Britain after it lost the battle of Britain; The air battle around the English Channel and northern France.
This took place in 1940, at a time where Hitler and Stalin were still allies.
Hitler had set a prerequisite that air superiority should be achieved before any amphibious assault of Britain took place.
Hitler first objective in fact was to force a surrender from Britain.

Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR took place in 1941.

Britain began sending miltary aid and food to Russia in 1941.

There is no doubt the Soviets defeated the Germans on land but that does not equate to they saved Britain from the Germans.
That is a completely false premise.

I notice that you've set a limit; you associate yourself as part of "we" concerning the US/West, but only up to a certain historical period? So, are you identifying with the USA of the 1940s/1950s but not with the USA of the 1700-1800s? It's a bit perplexing, to be honest lol.

The majority of Germans tend to align their identity with Germany irrespective of the historical period. They often prefer to steer clear of discussions about their country's dark past, choosing to avoid such conversations, even though it remains an integral part of their history.

I'm not certain, but I believe it's a relatively insignificant matter. What prompted Russia to wait exactly till now to knock out Ukrainian internet providers? Did they delay until Selensky arrived in Washington so that he could watch YouTube while ordinary Ukrainians were unable to do so? Will Russians circulate videos of Selensky enjoying internet access in Washington while ordinary Ukrainians endure hardships at home? Could this be the catalyst for sparking an anti-Selensky revolution in Ukraine?

lmao

I asked you a simple question, how many Germans or Americans refer to themselves as "we" in those contexts? None? So why would I or any other American?

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Dec 12 2023 01:36pm

Arguing with this guy is like arguing with a colorblind guy over crayons, you're wasting your time bud Uber23 has no idea what hes talking about

This post was edited by ChatGPT on Dec 12 2023 01:37pm

They're also not wrong. A majority of the population annexed by the USSR following the partition was Ukrainian / Belorussian. The Polish state post-WWI and Treaty of Riga had far too many non-Poles.



I agree. Germany felt it had to move against Russia because Russia was steadily gaining at their expense. Technology transfers in exchange for raw materials, and the Soviets were demanding concessions in Romania that would threaten Germany's fuel supplies. The war with the West could not be ended, and they faced the prospect of of a Soviet invasion in the foreseeable future. Russian industrial production was skyrocketing and there was a limited time to act.

This post was edited by bogie160 on Dec 12 2023 01:53pm

The unique aspect of the USA and even Canada is their identity as countries of immigrants. Many individuals identify with their ancestral heritage, such as "German," "Scottish," or "Irish," despite being born in the country. However, it becomes amusing when someone uses "we" to describe events they or even their ancestors were not involved in. In my case, my ancestors are primarily Scandinavian. Should I then use "we" when discussing the Northern War against Russia, in which my ancestors may or may not have played a role? Or should I identify as "we" in relation to British settlers who essentially deceived Aboriginal natives in Canada? I don't refer to myself as a "we" in either of those examples because I've personally had nothing to do with these events or factions. Maybe if my family lineage was that of a Swedish king that led forces against Russia or some general, I would refer to myself as a "we" there.

On the contrary, you use "we" when discussing the USA/West of the 1940s/1950s, events, countries, or factions that neither you nor your ancestors had any connection to at that time. I'm attempting to understand the thought process that leads you to believe that as an immigrant, likely arriving in the USA during the 1990s, you have any meaningful connection to the USA of the 1940s/1950s.

In a previous post, you mentioned "Our grandfathers" in reference to men living in the USA during the 1940s. Nonetheless, your grandfathers lived in Russia or a Russian satellite during that period, inadvertently placing them on the opposing side of the USA during the Cold War. If an actual war had erupted between Russia and the USA, your actual grandfathers would likely have been in conflict with the very men you now identify as "our grandfathers." Why do you seek to embrace a history that isn't rightfully yours?

So, they endeavored to protect Ukrainian and Belarusian minorities living in Poland at that time, who were actively engaged in opposing Russia during the Polish–Soviet war? I'm not entirely certain if those minorities had any say in whether they desired such protection, considering Russian tendencies and all...

Ukraine will need at least $1.79 billion to rebuild its telecommunications infrastructure to function at the pre-war level.