▲ 263 ▼ Americans don't want to fight for their country anymore (www.newsweek.com) submitted 2 years ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world 190 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (2 children) You know that was more so Russia right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (2 children) I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent [–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago We would be living in a better world if they did permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (3 children) It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent [–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa. But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war? Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before… permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t. Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) "made a deal with Hitler" What the fuck do you think appeasement was? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 2 years ago In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe. It’s ok keep working on your English! permalink fedilink source parent