Exactly why I have always maintained the greatest US blunder during the last century was not allowing the Germans to fight a single front war with the Soviets. Russia would have fallen into German hands but the Germans would have nothing left to protect Berlin from an Allied invasion. It would be a win/win of epic proportions.

Bullying Japan into submission...by having them rapidly expand into Asia?

Manipulating Germany into Poland? Famously, Hitler never espoused the idea that Germany needed land to expand into.

Forcing Japan into war against the US?

Playing England, France, and Germany into war against each other? As everyone knows, those nations had a recent history of friendship and held no grudges against each other.

BoDog said:

---

Exactly why I have always maintained the greatest US blunder during the last century was not allowing the Germans to fight a single front war with the Soviets. Russia would have fallen into German hands but the Germans would have nothing left to protect Berlin from an Allied invasion. It would be a win/win of epic proportions.

---

Now, exactly how would that have played out? That's a pretty bizarre take.

Seems like a "We should've kept going until we hit Moscow" take

Seriously? Its actually a pretty easy scenario to imagine.

The Germans would have taken if not decimated Russia at an alarmingly huge military expense to the point where they wouldn't have much left to defend the motherland from the invading Americans and Brits (nevermind the constant carpet bombing at the expense of the German people and infrastructure).

There would be no Russia as a major player on the world stage. No Soviet Bloc and therefore no cold war.

BoDog said:

---

Exactly why I have always maintained the greatest US blunder during the last century was not allowing the Germans to fight a single front war with the Soviets. Russia would have fallen into German hands but the Germans would have nothing left to protect Berlin from an Allied invasion. It would be a win/win of epic proportions.

---

We were happy to let Russia bear the burden. They paid a much heavier price in lives, one we may not have been willing to withstand. The downside is that we made Russia a superpower and gave them half of Europe.

If Germany had subjugated Russia they would have been a much more formidable opponent to us.

BoDog said:

---

Seriously? Its actually a pretty easy scenario to imagine.

The Germans would have taken if not decimated Russia at an alarmingly huge military expense to the point where they wouldn't have much left to defend the motherland from the invading Americans and Brits (nevermind the constant carpet bombing at the expense of the German people and infrastructure).

There would be no Russia as a major player on the world stage. No Soviet Bloc and therefore no cold war.

---

This is so insanely wrong and out of touch with reality that I am seriously wondering if you are trolling or not. You can't just will fantasy into reality. I hope you know that. That scenario you try to paint is absurd and so far from what was possible that I am struggling to even wrap my head around it.

This thread is already Fubar"ed beyond hope so what's another derail?

Nothing fantasy about it. Take any college level post WWII seminar and this or something similar always gets brought up. Its not like I pulled this out of my ass. History is full of what ifs/if then scenarios.

But please go on. Please enlighten us.

These are the same Germans that had up to 80% of their military in the east, couldn't take Leningrad during a 2+ year siege, got rocked at Stalingrad, then had two separate Soviet armies actually racing to see which would take Berlin first, right?

It was the majority but not 80%. Allocated more modern weaponry in the west.

BoDog said:

---

Nothing fantasy about it. Take any college level post WWII seminar and this or something similar always gets brought up. Its not like I pulled this out of my ass. History is full of what ifs/if then scenarios.

But please go on. Please enlighten us.

---

I actually have a running multi year long wartime what if scenario thread on the history board. It's literally one of my most favorite things in life. I can bump it if you want to drop it in there. I also don't subscribe to the "I took a college course and we had a discussion" thing as a authoritative viewpoint. Sorry.

But ultimately there is going to be two huge points that we either agree or disagree on and that is that. First is Germany would have beat Russia for sure. I contest that. The second is the western Allies would have stopped to "allow" Germany a one front war? Not even entirely sure what that means but either way, I do not agree we would have stopped.

Quote:

---

How about strategic significance? Here's the clincher. Let's be blunt: the German army lost World War II on the Eastern Front. For most of the war, 75-80 percent of the Wehrmacht had to be deployed in the East, a preponderance dictated by the sheer size of the front, and 80 percent of German war dead perished there: about four million of the five million German soldiers killed in World War II.

---

Operation Barbarossa: The Biggest of All Time

BoDog said:

---

Seriously? Its actually a pretty easy scenario to imagine.

The Germans would have taken if not decimated Russia at an alarmingly huge military expense to the point where they wouldn't have much left to defend the motherland from the invading Americans and Brits (nevermind the constant carpet bombing at the expense of the German people and infrastructure).

There would be no Russia as a major player on the world stage. No Soviet Bloc and therefore no cold war.

---

This is seriously a pretty easy scenario to imagine that it is pure fantasy from both political and military points. So, the US would just "stop" and let Germany finish Russia - in what world could the US and Britain just "stop" for a while from a political position. And if Germany had finished off Russia they would have been a juggernaut that the US would have been at a serious disadvantage to challenge. Once Germany defeated (and that's an unrealistic huge if), they would have then had 4x the men and materiel to go against the western allies - not to mention they would have then had access to the massive natural resources of Russia (oil, metal ores, timber, farmland) and been able to place (or utilize captured) factories out of reach of US bombers (and again not having to allocate air power to the eastern front so available to counter the allied bombers).

And how does this dovetail in with the US war in the pacific. The US public would never have had the stomach for the unbelievable loss of life to take on both Germany and Japan single handed. The invasion of mainland Japan was avert significantly with the help of Russia declaring war on Japan in early August 1945 - without that, Japan likely continues and forces a mainland invasion.

Could go on in detail, but please pull out your notes from that "any college history class" and give details on how your scenario could have been accomplished.

the US would have been at a serious disadvantage to challenge. Once Germany defeated (and that's an unrealistic huge if), they would have then had 4x the men and materiel to go against the western allies -

Uh, the A-Bomb says hi. We had or would soon have the freaking BOMB! With that we are at no disadvantage with Germany. Now how/when we would deploy it is another story, but if backed into a corner its a good possibility we turn Berlin into glass.

Besides please explain how they would have 4x the men? I guess those 80% in the east that dead referenced just suffered minor scratches.

Martin Cash said:

---

McKinney Ag69 said:

---

1. We provoked Russia by putting NATO on their doorstep. Imagine If Russia had bases in the Bahamas or Mexico.

---

That's nonsense. Putin is not stupid. He knows NATO is a defensive treaty and poses no threat to Russia. Russia put NATO on their own doorstep.

---

This common historically ignorant trope is an absurdity that should be pointed at and mocked whenever it is brought up. I'll be charitable and at least provide a link this time to some history. Conclusion:

Quote:

---

…'nato has been revitalized, and the United States has reclaimed a mantle of leadership that some feared had vanished in Iraq and Afghanistan', the New York Times announced two weeks after the offensive began.footnote94The Ukraine war opens a new chapter in nato's story, yet to be written. What balance sheet can be drawn of the trajectory of the alliance so far? From the Balkans to the Dnieper, its claims as guarantor of peace in Europe disclose on examination their oppositea career of brinksmanship, Machtpolitik and provocation. In terms of capability aggregation and military throw-weight, the record of Franco-British showboating in North Africa and the failure after twenty years to subdue the Taliban speaks for itself. Ankara's performance as gatekeeper to Finnish and Swedish accession, all while pursuing its ongoing campaign against the Kurds in Iraq and Syria, illuminates the circumference of the Atlantic 'community of values'.footnote95

In other respects, however, nato chiefs may be entitled to boast that theirs is 'the most successful alliance in history'.footnote96 Midwife to liberal rebirth in Eastern Europe, sheriff of globalization, warden of international outlawry: the variety of its missions, if not always compatible with its principles, attests to the prepotency of its helmsman. nato's ranks more than doubled in the first three decades after the end of the Cold War, new members inducted into a compact unbounded in all but name by the geographical ambit of the North Atlantic Treaty. The eu's relationship of dependency to it is codified in the 2009 Lisbon Treaty, which stipulates that no European security policy jeopardize commitments to the Atlantic Alliance.footnote97 As a mechanism for disciplining allies, mediating their disputes and managing imperial problems, its record in enforcing American hegemony over Europe cannot be gainsaid. Far from the sole such implement, readily dispensed with when inconvenient, it nevertheless bids fair to be the most influential. Integration is not merely a matter of standardizing munitions, refining doctrine and coordinating command protocols. Equally, if not more importantly, nato seeks to ensure 'mental interoperability'.footnote98 Atlanticism, de Gaulle once observed, 'is in us, amongst our ruling layers and those of our neighbouring countries.' 'It is in our heads.'footnote99

---

Martin Cash said:

---

McKinney Ag69 said:

---

1. We provoked Russia by putting NATO on their doorstep. Imagine If Russia had bases in the Bahamas or Mexico.

---

That's nonsense. Putin is not stupid. He knows NATO is a defensive treaty and poses no threat to Russia. Russia put NATO on their own doorstep.

---

Many, many people could not be reached for comment.

Quote:

---

According to a Council on Foreign Relations survey, in 2016 Obama dropped 26,171 bombs. That is 72 bombs every day. He bombed the poorest people and people of colour: in Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan.

Every Tuesday reported The New York Times he personally selected those who would be murdered by hellfire missiles fired from drones. Weddings, funerals, shepherds were attacked, along with those attempting to collect the body parts festooning the "terrorist target."

A leading Republican senator, Lindsey Graham, estimated, approvingly, that Obama's drones had killed 4,700 people. "Sometimes you hit innocent people and I hate that," he said, but we've taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda.'

In 2011, Obama told the media that the Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi was planning "genocide" against his own people. "We knew…," he said, "that if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city the size of Charlotte [North Carolina], could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world."

This was a lie. The only "threat" was the coming defeat of fanatical Islamists by Libyan government forces. With his plans for a revival of independent pan-Africanism, an African bank and African currency, all of it funded by Libyan oil, Gaddafi was cast as an enemy of Western colonialism on the continent in which Libya was the second most modern state.

Destroying Gaddafi's "threat" and his modern state was the aim. Backed by the U.S., Britain and France, NATO launched 9,700 sorties against Libya. A third were aimed at infrastructure and civilian targets, reported the UN. Uranium warheads were used; the cities of Misurata and Sirte were carpet-bombed. The Red Cross identified mass graves, and Unicef reported that "most [of the children killed] were under the age of ten."

When Hillary Clinton, Obama's secretary of state, was told that Gaddafi had been captured by the insurrectionists and sodomised with a knife, she laughed and said to the camera: "We came, we saw, he died!"

On 14 September 2016, the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee in London reported the conclusion of a year-long study into the NATO attack on Libya which it described as an "array of lies" including the Benghazi massacre story.

The NATO bombing plunged Libya into a humanitarian disaster, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands more, transforming Libya from the African country with the highest standard of living into a war-torn failed state.

Under Obama, the U.S. extended secret "special forces" operations to 138 countries, or 70 percent of the world's population. The first African-American president launched what amounted to a full-scale invasion of Africa.

Reminiscent of the Scramble for Africa in the 19th century, the U.S. African Command (Africom) has since built a network of supplicants among collaborative African regimes eager for American bribes and armaments. Africom's "soldier to soldier" doctrine embeds U.S. officers at every level of command from general to warrant officer. Only pith helmets are missing.

It is as if Africa's proud history of liberation, from Patrice Lumumba to Nelson Mandela, has been consigned to oblivion by a new white master's black colonial elite. This elite's "historic mission," warned the knowing Frantz Fanon, is the promotion of "a capitalism rampant though camouflaged."
In the year NATO invaded Libya, 2011, Obama announced what became known as the "pivot to Asia." Almost two-thirds of U.S. naval forces would be transferred to the Asia-Pacific to "confront the threat from China," in the words of his defence secretary.

There was no threat from China; there was a threat to China from the United States; some 400 American military bases formed an arc along the rim of China's industrial heartlands, which a Pentagon official described approvingly as a "noose."

At the same time, Obama placed missiles in Eastern Europe aimed at Russia. It was the beatified recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize who increased spending on nuclear warheads to a level higher than that of any U.S. administration since the Cold War having promised, in an emotional speech in the centre of Prague in 2009, to "help rid the world of nuclear weapons."

Obama and his administration knew full well that the coup his assistant secretary of state, Victoria Nuland, was sent to oversee against the government of Ukraine in 2014 would provoke a Russian response and probably lead to war. And so it has.

If the current propagandists get their war with China, this will be a fraction of what is to come. Speak up.

---

2024 is the next big scheduled 'election' here. I would like to hope we won't be in a war with China at that point.

I'll say it again, Putin and the ukraine pres. are pulling off the biggest scam ever using real bullets and murdering thousands in the name of getting rich from American dollars. They are in this together. Hell, Joe may be too. Money laundering with lives.

There's very little doubt about it. I haven't read anything about Zelensky family members fighting in Bakhmut.

74OA said:

---

Even communist China now agrees that Russia is the aggressor and, for the first time, has voted for a UN resolution condemning Moscow. Looks like you're one of the few friends Putin has left.

REALITY

---

74QA - I have noticed all you do on Russia and "Vaccines"/COVID is re-spew the mainstream media narrative.

Personally, I am not 'pulling for Russia' ....... but I am not 'pulling for Ukraine' either.

Quote:

---

5. There are actual Nazis in Ukrainian military. Didn't those guys lead to 60M deaths in WW2? Why are we giving them guns and money. No thanks .

---

You do realize that in order to defeat the second most murderous country in the world in World War II, we had to partner with the FIRST most murderous country in the world. Of course, MAO put them all to shame subesequently, but "they're not Nazis" is no legitimate moral defense to your ignorant position.

TheEternalPessimist said:

---

74OA said:

---

Even communist China now agrees that Russia is the aggressor and, for the first time, has voted for a UN resolution condemning Moscow. Looks like you're one of the few friends Putin has left.

REALITY

---

74QA - I have noticed all you do on Russia and "Vaccines"/COVID is re-spew the mainstream media narrative.

Personally, I am not 'pulling for Russia' ....... but I am not 'pulling for Ukraine' either.

---

I'm not pulling for Ukraine, I'm just wanting Russia to get their ass kicked.

aalan94 said:

---

Quote:

---

5. There are actual Nazis in Ukrainian military. Didn't those guys lead to 60M deaths in WW2? Why are we giving them guns and money. No thanks .

---

You do realize that in order to defeat the second most murderous country in the world in World War II, we had to partner with the FIRST most murderous country in the world. Of course, MAO put them all to shame subesequently, but "they're not Nazis" is no legitimate moral defense to your ignorant position.

---

Come on man.
These trolls were swigging Bug Light before the tran can.
Now they switched the Ultra because it is mas machismo, but still owned by InBev.

Setting cyberspace aside for a minute as that obviously isn't really a geographical issue...


Have we fought with China since the Korean War when Communist North Korea launched an invasion of South Korea? Sure, we have all these bases in Asia which...we don't attack China from. Hmm.

Is Russia harboring known terrorist organizations which have or have stated their intentions to attack the United States or other members of NATO?

How many bombs has Russia dropped on the poor black and brown folks of Afghanistan, Syria, etc.? How many African nations is Wagner Group, the group leading the largest battle in Ukraine, operating in?

More importantly, have you counted up how many bombs Russia has dropped on its geographical neighbors? And is it possible that might contribute to those neighbors wanting to join NATO?

Seems like we may be nearing the end of the 1st quarter in the Ukraine v Russia battle game.

Time to adjust your wagers and predict your winner.

No easy bets will be taken. For instance, with Biden in charge and so many people still scared of mean tweets, the United States is undoubtedly the biggest loser.

This is about whether Z turns it around or does Putin put in his replacements and get new US tech / weapons via our Chinese "trade partners"?

OP is pathetic

gtfo of the US

AgsOnDeck said:

---

OP is pathetic

gtfo of the US

---

Tolerance.

I am not pulling for either, but we are the most evil and perverse developed nation in the world and have zero room to throw stones at any other country. We are the number one world exporters of filth and degeneracy. And we have killed countless innocents in meaningless wars spanning much of the last century. Our intelligence agencies are weaponized arms of one political party and collude with mega tech corporations and media outlets to influence elections.

F*** the USA in its current form. Trash country with fancy gadgets, nothing more.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

AgsOnDeck said:

---

OP is pathetic

gtfo of the US

---

Tolerance.

---

Send all your money to Zelensky, bow to Biden, and give me your kids for sex and war!!! If you don't, you are not American. Yep, that is indeed the position of the libs and concerned moderates / squishy Rs pervasive around here.

To the comments on these threads, you either line up and kiss the ring of the Great Z or you are a Putin plant named Ivan.

AgsOnDeck said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

I am not pulling for either, but we are the most evil and perverse developed nation in the world and have zero room to throw stones at any other country. We are the number one world exporters of filth and degeneracy. And we have killed countless innocents in meaningless wars spanning much of the last century. Our intelligence agencies are weaponized arms of one political party and collude with mega tech corporations and media outlets to influence elections.

F*** the USA in its current form. Trash country with fancy gadgets, nothing more.

---

Hey, this 4th of July, go fly the Russian flag

Some of y'all are pathetic

---

Binary thinkers.

Ukraine has all the corruption including bio labs that many of our leaders and globalist financed ang with our govt.

Russia has many reasons but partly to stop NATO advancement
Also to expose the west
And to keep their strength as a country vs the banking cartels that continue to cripple countries when they don't oblige.

What about those who identify as non-binary

AgsOnDeck said:

---

BG Knocc Out said:

---

I am not pulling for either, but we are the most evil and perverse developed nation in the world and have zero room to throw stones at any other country. We are the number one world exporters of filth and degeneracy. And we have killed countless innocents in meaningless wars spanning much of the last century. Our intelligence agencies are weaponized arms of one political party and collude with mega tech corporations and media outlets to influence elections.

F*** the USA in its current form. Trash country with fancy gadgets, nothing more.

---

Hey, this 4th of July, go fly the Russian flag

Some of y'all are pathetic

---

Russia flag is red, white and blue. so.... is it really that bad?