Quote (Djunior @ 10 Sep 2024 18:36)
I guess that you believe the USSR was planning to attack Germany which wasn't the case, fact of the matter is Stalin purged much of his senior military and then the Molotov-Ribentrop pact of course.
Hitler could've maintained the status quo but attacked his trade partners and called them untermensch FFS. Massive amounts of oil and raw materials were going to Germany before the invasion in 1941.
Stalin thought a war with Germany was inevitable but it would be Germany attacking the USSR not the other way around.
History classes in the US probably don't go into that much detail (and why should they?), but no, the status quo was in fact not sustainable, not at all. The Nazis had spent like drunken sailors to re-arm and get the country out of the Great Depression. They had set up a rapine economy which crucially depended on capturing fresh resources and slave labor to keep going. Hyperinflation was already looming and Germany was barely able to feed its population at the time. (Agricultural methods and fertilizers weren't as advanced back then...)
They needed to keep conquering
Lebensraum, else, the whole house of cards that they had built would have crumbled. And that quest inevitably put them on a collision course with the Soviets. Except that the much larger USSR would have been unbeatable if given a couple of additional years of rapid industrialization. So yes, the clock was ticking. Considering the size disparity, the margin for a Nazi victory during WW2 was razor-thin since the very beginning. Thank goodness that they made several major strategic errors on top, which shortened the war and allowed it to come to a conclusion before both sides had developed nukes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote (ofthevoid @ 10 Sep 2024 22:07)
#team defensive alliance is now supplying weapons to a country that is not in NATO to strike another country
We are supplying an ally with the tools to defend itself by striking the supply lines, air fields and launching sites from which the opponent has been pummelling them for over two years. We can surely debate about how wise this step is, but I don't see a glaring contradiction.
Quote
We truly live in a world where a lot of people in the west will look at this situation and still label us defensive in nature, even though the only reason this war continues to this day is because we keep pumping tens of billions every month into Ukraine. It would be a breath of fresh air if they would just give up the moralism and stop trying to reframe all these wars we've engaged in since 2000s as defensive or 'protecting democracy' or whatever other sound good label and just be honest lol.
You should mention that ending Western support would imply Ukraine getting fully invaded, occupied, "cleansed" and subjugated. Trying to frame this situation as the nefarious West needlessly extending a war which could and should 'just end', is quite the stretch. You're making it sound as if the West would just need to get out of the way so that things in Ukraine can go their "natural course", with everyone being friends again, holding hands and singing kum ba yah.