u/columnal

Not really true.

Are you conveniently ignoring all the material aid the United States and Britain gave to the allied powers, including the USSR? Nearly 35% of all Soviet Trucks came from Lend Lease, nearly 15% of all tanks came from lend lease, 22,000 aircraft came from lendlease. 250 billion dollars in todays money was given to the USSR.

Even then, lets not ignore operation torch which effectively ended axis control over north africa, jointly led by the USA and Britain, or shall we mention prior US support to the British at El Alamein? Which decisively turned the war in the allied favour in north africa?

Or are you forgetting the Italian campaign? Which again tied down hundreds of thousands of italian and german troops in italy relieving significant pressure on the eastern front and effectively eliminating a major axis power from the war? Again, thanks to Britain and America and the commonwealth.

Even still, it's silly to claim the Western front was this easy steamroll just because the soviets weakened the germans. You are being moronic if you downplay the entire western front from 1944-1945, nearly 300,000 allied troops died and it was a significant relief of pressure on the eastern front, allowing the allies to enter germany in 1945 rather than 1946 or 47

Or are you forgetting the entire asia pacific war? Which, primarily, was the responsibility of China, The USA, Britain and Australia. The Japanese would not have been defeated had the Americans not been in the war.

I could very easily make the claim that the soviets just waited until China and America had softened up the Japanese doing all the work until 1945 and they invaded Manchuria, but thatd be silly.

Whats with this historical revisionism that the western allies did nothing in the war. Do you really think hitler and the wehrmact thought so? Its laughable to try and continue propagating this moronic revisionist thought. The war effort was won by all of the allies, not just the soviets 🤣

What evidence do you have Bin Laden was a "CIA Asset" ? Genuinely curious, because nobody is debating the Mujahideen and potentially Al Qaeda (formed in 1988) likely received funding and a degree of training from the CIA and MI6 in the latterhalf of the Soviet Afghan war, but to claim Bin Laden was a "CIA Asset" is nonsensical.

Where is the proof? Bin Laden spent the 90s publicly telling people his stated goal was to go to war against the USA. Why would Bin Laden work with the USA?

Bin Laden detested Isarel, the USA and their involvement in the middle east. What evidence do you have of the contrary? And no, saying "Well of course its just a mirage to to hide the actual intentions" is not an argument.

I agree the CIA and Mossad certainly had prior knowledge of the goals to launch a mass casualty terrorist attack that would benefit their goals in the middle east, but the CIA and Mossad don't need to "create" Bin Laden for this to be the case. They arent mutually exclusive. Islamic terrorism and fundamentals are a genuine thing and to deny otherwise is retard speak. Like, come on, we are all adults here with functioning brains, the CIA isnt behind the creation of every islamic terrorist group in the world.

The CIA certainly could've prevented 9/11 if they wanted to, there was certainly advanced knowledge they did not act upon, but yeah no, Bin Laden wasn't a "CIA Asset" created by the CIA unless you want to go all the way back to CIA involvement in the Mujahideen, and even then its tenuous to create a direct link from the Mujahideen to Al Qaeda and then to 9/11 and a continuous chain of CIA funding. I mean, unless you can provide credible evidence which you likely cant.

Why cant you just be rationale? Observe the evidence actually given and come to the conclusion that the deeper, more profound tragedy is that the CIA willingly decided not to act on prior evidence and deliberately decided to allow the 9/11 attacks to go ahead to strengthen regime change goals in Iraq and the Middle East. You dont need to go the extra kookery steps of proclaiming every islamic terrorist is a CIA asset lmfao

Nobody "trained" Bin Laden. What proof do you have of that?

If you mean that, Bin Laden/Al Qaeda and broadly the Mujhaideen received funding from the CIA and MI6 during the Soviet Afghan War, then sure, thats not really debated. Although the links between CIA funding directly to Al Qaeda are tenuous (Al Qaeda was formed in 1988), albeit mostly probable.

Why would Bin Laden need 'training' ? Bin Laden was a wealthy Saudi Businessman who had links to multiple islamic terrorists, thinkers and broad networks in Saudi circles and the Islamic world. Sure, there was certainly CIA funding during the 80s but to claim Bin Laden was "trained" by the CIA is just retard speak.

I agree the USA and Israel definitely wanted a regime change war in the middle east, and they certainly had prior knowledge of an upcoming mass casualty terrorist attack in the united states prior to 9/11, but to claim Bin Laden was "trained" by the CIA is just nonsensical retard speak with 0 factual basis.

https://youtu.be/WhoyEfT1q9Q?si=Qd7vJGPlcELsrC8J

I recommend this video. It explain its pretty well.

All these comments below are quite misleading, and I dont know why.

"I was under the impression that the Nazis wanted to expand the Reich to include basically everywhere that a germanic language was spoken in Europe" -> To a degree, yes. Of course this is kind of limited when you consider the fact the Nazi's never seriously wanted to annex countries like the UK, for example. Also regions like Banat and Transylvania had large German populations but were never seriously considered to be annexed, although with Banat it is a little more complicated.

We know for certain the Nazi's definitely wanted the Netherlands, Flanders (although arguably just Belgium as a whole) and the Germanic areas of Switzerland to be incorporated into the Reich. The Nazi's made this kind of clear throughout the war. Included further were plans to annex and germanify parts of northern france but its unclear whether this would actually materialise, but there were certainly plans for it.

"The wikipedia article for irredentism only talks about the sudetenland for german irredentism" -> thats because the Nazi ideology wasn't really irredentism. Irredentism usually refers to the reconquering or desire to regain control over lost territories, with some marginal variations on a case by case basis.

The thing is, the Nazi 'irredentism' you are talking about wasn't really irredentism and was something entirely different, it was basically arguing for a pan 'aryan' or germanic state, but countries like Norway had never been apart of the German state or any german state for that matter, whereas when you look at like Italian irredentism for example, Dalmatia and Istria had been apart of Venice for hundreds of years. Although Dalmatia of the 20's didn't have a huge italian population, there was still an irredentist claim based on the fact an Italian state had owned it in the past.

I think this is why only the Sudetenland is listed on the wikipedia page as you claim (I havent checked), but its probably because of a few things, Sudetenland had under Habsburg rule fairly recently, and Bohemia itself had been apart of the HRE for a few hundred years so theres certainly a degree of irredentist claim there rather than just the pure ethnic aspect of it. Also the Sudetenland was inhabited by undisputably germans, so again theres a slight distinction between that and the type of pan germanism that called for the integration of Norway into a pan-germanic reich.

please dont waste your time debating the absolute neckbeards in this comment section OP, majority of people on this subreddit will crucify you if you even remotely suggest anything that could hint at foul play. Good video

the whole myth orientated cult of violence shit is so dumb lmfao sorelianism is such a dumb ideology should be confined to 4chan boards. (Watch me get downvoted for calling the hypernationalistic batshit insane ultra violence german exterminator workers ideology stupid) Jesus christ people have no nuance.

Conspiracyslop. You can disagree with Nick Fuentes without calling him a fed, because you literally have no proof of it. It makes you and people on our side look like idiots 🤭

What about what I said is an opinion? I merely stated facts, youre the one whos ignoring all the thousands of carribean, african, indian, canadian australian, ethiopian, south african etc etc groups that fought prior to 1941 which you claim is the start date of the war. You demand i 'read some history' yet you yourself ignore the east african campaign, middle eastern campaigns, north african campaign, bombings of these regions by the italians, not to mention the countless naval combat throughout the world. YOU are the one who is ignoring this, for some odd racist reason. So please tell me, what is exactly bullshit about this or are you just unable to debate me, because ive given you evidence, I can even give sources. You, cannot. You, refuse to argue. Its almost like what youre saying is wrong! 😁

Opinions? What about what I said is an opinion? I merely stated facts, youre the one whos ignoring all the thousands of carribean, african, indian, canadian australian, ethiopian, south african etc etc groups that fought prior to 1941 which you claim is the start date of the war. You demand i 'read some history' yet you yourself ignore the east african campaign, middle eastern campaigns, north african campaign, bombings of these regions by the italians, not to mention the countless naval combat throughout the world. YOU are the one who is ignoring this, for some odd racist reason. So please tell me, what is exactly bullshit about this or are you just unable to debate me, because ive given you evidence, I can even give sources. You, cannot. You, refuse to argue. Its almost like what youre saying is wrong! 😁

Opinions? What about what I said is an opinion? I merely stated facts, youre the one whos ignoring all the thousands of carribean, african, indian, canadian australian, ethiopian, south african etc etc groups that fought prior to 1941 which you claim is the start date of the war. You demand i 'read some history' yet you yourself ignore the east african campaign, middle eastern campaigns, north african campaign, bombings of these regions by the italians, not to mention the countless naval combat throughout the world. YOU are the one who is ignoring this, for some odd racist reason. So please tell me, what is exactly bullshit about this or are you just unable to debate me, because ive given you evidence, I can even give sources. You, cannot. You, refuse to argue. Its almost like what youre saying is wrong! 😁

Its called a WORLD war. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 it was localised to conflict between Japan and China. If this had any ramifications in determining the outbreak of a WORLD war then we wouldve seen most of the world go into war in 1931. But it didnt, guess why? Because it was a war between China and Japan. Just because the two conflicts later intertwined does not mean you can say the conflicted originated in 1931.

When Germany declared war on Poland in 1939, the war was Global. Hence, WORLD war. And dont spew bullshit by saying this mainly prompted fighting in Europe. You had naval conflict across the world due to Germanys early naval trade interdictions for example as far as places such as the Falklands. The entire might of the British and French empires rallied hundreds of thousands of different ethnic groups into their armies from across the world. This culmination of fighting from across the world can only be traced to the invasion of poland as thats what directly brought the rest of the world into fighting, not Japan invading Manchuria.

remove europe

1. I like the long hair

bro looks norse