Perhaps so, but it wasn't exactly free though was it? Russia finally paid off their debt in 2006, I believe.
Same with Britain, but we also had to agree to give up what was left of the Empire and be America's lapdog into perpetuity (Iraq and Ukraine being prime examples).
I would never downplay the sacrifice made by Russians, not just in defeating Nazis, but also defeating Napolean and helping US is so many crucial points, and in general defending the world against Cabal's evil schemes.
I am simply making the point that in fact, WW2 would not have ended without USA entering the war and providing both the military and the financial support. I wouldn't phrase it as "single-handedly defeated the Nazis" and even Trump did not claim that in his Victory day announcement (I am assuming this post was triggered by the coverage of that speech), but without US it would not have been possible.
Independently of the Russian question, I believe Napoleon took a stand against the cabal, and handed the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S.A. to help us against the cabal when his chances grew slimmer.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Alaska was gifted to the USA by the czar for the same reasons.
I knew a smart anon will debate me on Napoleon and hence i chose my words carefully - “against Cabal's evil schemes” because i don’t know if Napoleon tried to rate a stand against the Cabal from the beginning or whether he was a Cabal puppet or whether he started off as a puppet and turned against his masters like so many others in history.
Napolean is a mystery but one thing is for sure. He plunged the European countries into debt to English bankers and he tried hard to defeat Russians - Cabals eternal wet dreams. So as far as the results of his actions he is part of Cabal’s evil schemes
started off as a puppet and turned against his masters like so many others in history.
That's my bet. The way anyone rises to prominence is by playing ball with them. But the closer they get, the more they realize it's the road to evil. And some resist with varying degrees of success, like Lincoln, Napoleon, Kennedy, Diana, or Reagan.
I would say Otto von Hindenburg was another, but his sincere opposition leading a real movement got him replaced by Hitler, a puppet who pretended to oppose the cabal but instead helped them double down on their killing. Difficult to tease out the truth of an individual's true motivations when time gets in the way, but that's my hunch on Napoleon.
Particularly in your belief that my post was triggered by Trump's statement that the US did more to defeat Nazi Germany than the rest of the allies combined. I can't help wondering if he actually believes what he said.
What I find most difficult to reconcile is the amount of Russiaphobia in the 'Collect West' when the WWII allies should ALL be coming together to celebrate defeating the Nazi scum.
Btw the greatest achievement of Hitler and Stalin combined was that together they eliminated more Nazis and Commie at the same time than any other event.
I kinda think Molotov-Ribbontrop pact was really aimed at this
I’m with you B_B! So, was Hitler trying to take out the Nazis and got blamed for being one of them because he was in the losing side of WW2? I’m trying to make sense of all the deception around WW2….
My theory is that Hitler was a bloodline guy (probably from the time his mother worked for the Rothschilds) and was initiated into the occult.
He did not know the true goal of the Satanists and he sincerely wanted to free Germany. NSDAP started off with a bunch of occultists, and before he know he had lost control of the extent in which Satanists had taken over.
At some point he decided that he has to take down this compromised Nazism and enacted the plan B as I call it, where he attacked USSR. Stalin was in the same boat but I think he was more clued in than Hitler because he was experienced with the Bolshevik leadership for much longer than Hitler had been in power.
Makes sense….thanks for sharing!…interesting….i haven’t thought about an attempt by Hitler to join forces with Stalin. Weird way to do it by invading the country of the people you’re trying to join forces with, but Hitler didn’t have a lot of options by the early 40’s (I think he really got backed into a corner). I don’t know as much about Stalin as I think I need to…..
I thought so. I’d urge you to relisten to the clip again. He chose his words very carefully and he gave a very nice shoutout to Russians. He never used the phrase “single handedly” nor did he imply it in any way.
"...we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II." and "We won two World Wars, but we never took credit for it..."
I think that DJT has been watching too many Audi Murphy films.
Russia even helped us in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They've never really been our enemy, only the infiltrators who overthrew it and brought in socialism. But the MSM never draws that distinction.
If anyone still seriously thinks that the 'Collective West', using Ukraine as a proxy, can defeat today's Russian Federation they should immediately seek psychiatric help.
Well, it depends on what story you want to tell, and what dimension you want to emphasize.
What is often overlooked is the whiting over of the disastrous policies of Stalin, just to keep his power base in tact.
But in terms of numbers, DePuy is the guy to go to.
Compare:
According to "Undying Regiment" data taken from the State Planning Committee now opened, the total number of lost people in the USSR in 41-45 was 52 mil. The natural number would be about 10 mil. So, the number of losses was counted as 42,000,000 people. Here are ALL losses, due to hunger, illnesses due to malnutrition, KIA, civilians killed, died in camps and other reasons. Of these, military losses consisted about 19 mil.
During the first three months the Soviet losses were about a million/month. They surrendered, because mostly they hated the SU.
Interestingly, the Cossacks. These were eventually "repatriated to the Soviet Union after war, causing a rebellion by Georgian soldiers serving in the Wehrmacht during the period May45 - June 45 in several areas that were not yet occupied by Allied forces in Northern Netherlands. The reason was, as expressed by General Blaskowitz in April of 45, surrender was not a bad idea but then assurances had to be given that Germans troops would be considered POW and not delivered into the hands of the Soviet Union to perform slave labor in Siberia. Such assurances were not given. They were labeled: captured enemy combatants.
Then we have Depuy (Number predictions and war)
Germany remained man to man superior not just to the Western allied armies right up to the end of the war but considerably so to the USSR. Even by at Kursk Germany had a 256% fighting effectiveness advantage to the soviets, 1 German soldier was equal to 2.56 soviets in fighting ability.
By 44, this advantage had dropped to 180%, one German soldier being equal to 1.8 soviets. Depuy study is exhaustive, and just goes to show this guy above does not know what he is talking about. Oh by the way Depuy factored in the defensive advantage the Germans had, this figure is minus that advantage. So on an even field basis, 100 German were equal to 180 Soviets. The soviets won because of overwhelming numbers, Hitler's stupidity and the second front, THE USA!
Allies mobilized against Germany 40.4 million, Germany Mobilized 12.5 million. Allied casualties 23 million, German 10.1 Million. Score effectiveness Allied .25, German 1.84. Which means one in four Allied soldiers inflicted a casualty on the Germans, while each German averaged nearly two Allied casualties. Even after Depuy adjusted for defense posture the German score rating was 1.42. Which was five times as great as the Allies
Sobering statistics, no doubt. The question becomes: What is the reason for this? And this is reason is the real story.
I know President Trump is a master at trolling, but I didn’t think his trolling on this was directed at foreign targets. I thought he was calling out a tactic of the American left to downplay anything that stirs a sense of patriotism. He said something to the effect “we never celebrate anything.”
I guess I also wouldn’t underestimate the possibility he is doing this to raise awareness about World War 2, to generations who are oblivious to history. Every time someone pushes back with historical perspective people are getting an education.
Russia even helped us in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They've never really been our enemy, only the infiltrators who overthrew it and brought in socialism. But the MSM never draws that distinction.
Wait until you find out who funded the USSR with their Lend Lease program.
FDR
New Deal
Perhaps so, but it wasn't exactly free though was it? Russia finally paid off their debt in 2006, I believe.
Same with Britain, but we also had to agree to give up what was left of the Empire and be America's lapdog into perpetuity (Iraq and Ukraine being prime examples).
I would never downplay the sacrifice made by Russians, not just in defeating Nazis, but also defeating Napolean and helping US is so many crucial points, and in general defending the world against Cabal's evil schemes.
I am simply making the point that in fact, WW2 would not have ended without USA entering the war and providing both the military and the financial support. I wouldn't phrase it as "single-handedly defeated the Nazis" and even Trump did not claim that in his Victory day announcement (I am assuming this post was triggered by the coverage of that speech), but without US it would not have been possible.
Independently of the Russian question, I believe Napoleon took a stand against the cabal, and handed the Louisiana Purchase to the U.S.A. to help us against the cabal when his chances grew slimmer.
I wouldn't be too surprised if Alaska was gifted to the USA by the czar for the same reasons.
I knew a smart anon will debate me on Napoleon and hence i chose my words carefully - “against Cabal's evil schemes” because i don’t know if Napoleon tried to rate a stand against the Cabal from the beginning or whether he was a Cabal puppet or whether he started off as a puppet and turned against his masters like so many others in history.
Napolean is a mystery but one thing is for sure. He plunged the European countries into debt to English bankers and he tried hard to defeat Russians - Cabals eternal wet dreams. So as far as the results of his actions he is part of Cabal’s evil schemes
That's my bet. The way anyone rises to prominence is by playing ball with them. But the closer they get, the more they realize it's the road to evil. And some resist with varying degrees of success, like Lincoln, Napoleon, Kennedy, Diana, or Reagan.
I would say Otto von Hindenburg was another, but his sincere opposition leading a real movement got him replaced by Hitler, a puppet who pretended to oppose the cabal but instead helped them double down on their killing. Difficult to tease out the truth of an individual's true motivations when time gets in the way, but that's my hunch on Napoleon.
I agree to a certain extent.
Particularly in your belief that my post was triggered by Trump's statement that the US did more to defeat Nazi Germany than the rest of the allies combined. I can't help wondering if he actually believes what he said.
What I find most difficult to reconcile is the amount of Russiaphobia in the 'Collect West' when the WWII allies should ALL be coming together to celebrate defeating the Nazi scum.
Btw the greatest achievement of Hitler and Stalin combined was that together they eliminated more Nazis and Commie at the same time than any other event.
I kinda think Molotov-Ribbontrop pact was really aimed at this
I’m with you B_B! So, was Hitler trying to take out the Nazis and got blamed for being one of them because he was in the losing side of WW2? I’m trying to make sense of all the deception around WW2….
My theory is that Hitler was a bloodline guy (probably from the time his mother worked for the Rothschilds) and was initiated into the occult.
He did not know the true goal of the Satanists and he sincerely wanted to free Germany. NSDAP started off with a bunch of occultists, and before he know he had lost control of the extent in which Satanists had taken over.
At some point he decided that he has to take down this compromised Nazism and enacted the plan B as I call it, where he attacked USSR. Stalin was in the same boat but I think he was more clued in than Hitler because he was experienced with the Bolshevik leadership for much longer than Hitler had been in power.
Makes sense….thanks for sharing!…interesting….i haven’t thought about an attempt by Hitler to join forces with Stalin. Weird way to do it by invading the country of the people you’re trying to join forces with, but Hitler didn’t have a lot of options by the early 40’s (I think he really got backed into a corner). I don’t know as much about Stalin as I think I need to…..
I thought so. I’d urge you to relisten to the clip again. He chose his words very carefully and he gave a very nice shoutout to Russians. He never used the phrase “single handedly” nor did he imply it in any way.
See the following extracts from TS:
"...we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II." and "We won two World Wars, but we never took credit for it..."
I think that DJT has been watching too many Audi Murphy films.
Russia even helped us in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They've never really been our enemy, only the infiltrators who overthrew it and brought in socialism. But the MSM never draws that distinction.
If anyone still seriously thinks that the 'Collective West', using Ukraine as a proxy, can defeat today's Russian Federation they should immediately seek psychiatric help.
The only country that won WW2 was Israel/Jews.
We retreated to allow the Soviet Union to get to Berlin first. And allow the USSR to swallow up Eastern Europe.
Millions and millions of people died and suffered from 1945-1990 because of those pro Stalin agreements.
Well, it depends on what story you want to tell, and what dimension you want to emphasize.
What is often overlooked is the whiting over of the disastrous policies of Stalin, just to keep his power base in tact.
But in terms of numbers, DePuy is the guy to go to.
Compare:
During the first three months the Soviet losses were about a million/month. They surrendered, because mostly they hated the SU.
Interestingly, the Cossacks. These were eventually "repatriated to the Soviet Union after war, causing a rebellion by Georgian soldiers serving in the Wehrmacht during the period May45 - June 45 in several areas that were not yet occupied by Allied forces in Northern Netherlands. The reason was, as expressed by General Blaskowitz in April of 45, surrender was not a bad idea but then assurances had to be given that Germans troops would be considered POW and not delivered into the hands of the Soviet Union to perform slave labor in Siberia. Such assurances were not given. They were labeled: captured enemy combatants.
Then we have Depuy (Number predictions and war)
Sobering statistics, no doubt. The question becomes: What is the reason for this? And this is reason is the real story.
""I would love to know the real story. I think "his story" is a big lie. What I have learned so far shook me to my core. Europa.
And guess who took the experienced German soldiers in after WWII? France’s Foreign Legion.
I know President Trump is a master at trolling, but I didn’t think his trolling on this was directed at foreign targets. I thought he was calling out a tactic of the American left to downplay anything that stirs a sense of patriotism. He said something to the effect “we never celebrate anything.”
I guess I also wouldn’t underestimate the possibility he is doing this to raise awareness about World War 2, to generations who are oblivious to history. Every time someone pushes back with historical perspective people are getting an education.
It could have been a ploy to get the MSM to say what a good job the Russians had done which would go against their current anti-Russian narrative.
So, they either believe Trump which goes against their TDS or they disbelieve him and promote Russia which goes against their Russophobia. Win-win!
Russia even helped us in the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. They've never really been our enemy, only the infiltrators who overthrew it and brought in socialism. But the MSM never draws that distinction.
Does anyone actually think that?