patrick.net

It's true though.

The Nazis were defeated by the Soviet Union, not by America or Britain.

The crack in the dike? Vax injured retaliating in kind against the prison camp guards? "Corporate"aka Globalist mercenaries posing as police?
https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordWDSGroup/86617
https://t.me/BenjaminFulfordWDSGroup/86641

Ceffer says

crack in the dike

I have to admit that a very bad pun could be made out of this somehow.

Patrick says

The bottom isn't true either.

15-20% of the USSR war machine was financed/supplied by the UK and (far more) US. The Battle of Moscow featured UK Mk 2 Cruiser tanks. Bagration many Shermans. And the whole push to Berlin was Studebaker Trucks and Willy Jeeps hauling up beans, bullets, and black oil.

Also, the "Poor Wehrmacht held back hordes of Asiatics" is BS too. About half the Russian Army was eliminated or captured in 1941-early 1942. The Russians built back half their army. The Red Army RE-learned tricks and tactics, pioneered by Tukachevsky who fell out of favor and was shot by Stalin (resulting in abandonment of his mobile warfare doctrine) not just threw human hordes at the Wehrmacht in a "Steamroller". The T-34 was the best all round tank of the war and the Defense in Depth and Mobile Defense to quickly blunt or halt the Schwerpunkt. Also Hitler reduced the number of tanks in every Panzer Division to create new ones in 1941, so the Panzerdivisions in Russia were not as strong as those that invaded France.

Finally, German Infantry divisions moved like molasses - they literally walked in some cases from Warsaw to the Volga entirely on foot the whole way - and their Anti-Tank Guns were incredibly undergunned against Medium Tanks. Once the Germans went on the defensive, Panzerdivisions had to constantly bailout hammered German Infantry that didn't have anti-Tank capacity at distance, especially in the Steppes and Plains of Ukraine where the Panzerschrek and -Faust couldn't work except at close ranges and typically only a likely kill when fired at the rear armor.

Evidence of this is the German "Pivot" defense where they would immediately counter-attack as a local offensive by Soviets ran out of gas. That wouldn't work in a steamroll attack by endless echelons of low grade troops.

American and Russian tactics and technology peaked in 1943-1944. By 1943 the Me109 was outclassed by the Merlin Engines and the Spitfire and P-47/51s, the Zero by the F4U's new "slash" tactics, Japanese Infilitration and Wave Attacks countered, and the mass production of T-34s (and Shermans) against the complex plethora of German Tanks and TDs and all their variants.

Sadly, the one great lesson of WW2 took decades and that was the Fire Brigade, now a cornerstone of 4th gen warfare, but one the US Army hates for itself because it means the endless echelon of Army Officers can't micromanage to their heart's content.

A unit that mixes infantry and armored elements with it's own set artillery and air support, given a clear mission, and left the fuck alone. Sadly, the latter part is almost never executed, and US Brass continues to use "networked warfare" to meddle and second guess on-the-ground forces from their air conditioned trailer while eating ice cream hundreds of miles away, a legacy of Vietnam.

Reducing officers above Major by 80% should be a main priority. The several incorrect lessons of the Cold War was to always have more officers than necessary because training them takes too long, the practical effect is the Military is top-heavy, and too many Chiefs and not enough Indians is a recipe for Bureaucracy and Micromanagement, which over generations becomes more and more dangerous and expensive.

AmericanKulak says

the one great lesson of WW2 took decades and that was the Fire Brigade

How does the Fire Brigade work?

Ceffer says

I'll have to use this or a variation of this at my next checkup.

Patrick says

US did though sacrifice many men in that war. normandy was bloody.

True, quite a lot, though the Russians lost many more.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

US did though sacrifice many men in that war. normandy was bloody.

With all due respect for the people that went to that war, the US didn't make any difference in the outcome. The US should have never been involved.

The Marshall Plan was important though, if it wasn't for that, all of Europe could have become part of the Soviet empire.

Hitler cut through the Russians like a hot knife through butter.
His strategic blunder was destroying Stalingrad to spite Stalin.
Had Hilter not wasted hundreds of thousands of men and time, he would have easily marched into Moscow.
Hitler arguably invented modern Western warfare.

richwicks says

US didn't make any difference in the outcome. The US should have never been involved.

The Soviets would have starved in 1943 and surrendered. Right now you are seeing Russia operate it's military without massive US (and British) aid that they had in WW2.

https://babylonbee.com/news/white-house-lit-up-with-symbol-of-religious-cult

Patrick says

How does the Fire Brigade work?

A Fire Brigade was a formation created by field level officers to plug a gap or take an objective. It was given a mix of small units specifically chosen for a task and given dedicated air and arty support and put under the command of an officer who can do whatever the hell he wants to make sure it's achieved.

British used soldiers from all over the world. Never gave credit.

E.g
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33317368
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_in_World_War_II

Like, everything that is sick, depraved, corrupt and criminal about DC?

richwicks says

With all due respect for the people that went to that war, the US didn't make any difference in the outcome.

If not for the English and Americans in the West, WWII would have ended with Soviet domination of Europe.

zzyzzx says

richwicks says

US didn't make any difference in the outcome. The US should have never been involved.

The Soviets would have starved in 1943 and surrendered. Right now you are seeing Russia operate it's military without massive US (and British) aid that they had in WW2.

... and they are failing to subdue a much smaller and weaker opponent.

In WWII the US has basically fed, clothed, provided arms and transportation for the Red Army and material for the stuff they manufactured themselves. But ignoramuses gonna ignorame (yes, invented word).

All the Soviets have to show for it is their enormous losses (of which they are idiotically proud) stemming mostly from flawed tactics and general disregard for human lives.

HeadSet says

If not for the English and Americans in the West, WWII would have ended with Soviet domination of Europe.

Again, that was accomplished with the Marshall Plan.

Remember, the USSR was on the side of the Allies.

RWSGFY says

All the Soviets have to show for it is their enormous losses (of which they are idiotically proud) stemming mostly from flawed tactics and general disregard for human lives.

The Soviets, and the Allies, both enormously overestimated their losses in WWII in order to divvy of the spoils of war.

We live today accepting as facts what was propaganda and just lies of the time. There's plenty.

richwicks says

The Soviets, and the Allies, both enormously overestimated their losses in WWII in order to divvy of the spoils of war.

Nice try. The reported Soviet losses went way up after USSR achives were (briefly) open in 1991-93. Like 2x up.

richwicks says

Again, that was accomplished with the Marshall Plan.

It was accomplished with brutal force of US military stationed in Europe. Where it was absent all agreements to hold fair elections were reneged by the USSR and countries were put under Soviet yoke up unitl 1989.

RWSGFY says

In WWII the US has basically fed, clothed, provided arms and transportation for the Red Army and material for the stuff they manufactured themselves.

Here, from the horses' mouths:

"I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war. ...The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." -- Joseph Stalin at the November 1943 Tehran conference

"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." -- Nikita Khrushchev in his memoirs

Eric Holder says

Nice try. The reported Soviet losses went way up after USSR achives were (briefly) open in 1991-93. Like 2x up.

Well, give us a link..

Everybody lied about their losses in WWII, except perhaps the United States.

Eric Holder says

It was accomplished with brutal force of US military stationed in Europe. Where it was absent all agreements to hold fair elections were reneged by the USSR and countries were put under Soviet yoke up unitl 1989.

The US handed over countries like Poland to the USSR. Typical of the United States, they fucked over a lot of smaller allies that helped them. They did it to Vietnam. Before WWII, the agreement the US made with Ho Chi Minh was that if he supported the allies against Japan, the US would support Vietnam's bid for independence from France.

But France refused to join NATO if the US supported Vietnam's bid for independence, so the US reneged on their promise and that led to the Vietnam war because Minh found he got support from the USSR and China in his bid for independence. That war ultimately bankrupted the United States, which led to the "Nixon Shock" which started us off to doubling our national debt, every 8 years, from 1971 to now.

The US should have just gone to war with France. That would have been easy to win. They were already defeated. Not like we needed France in NATO anyhow. Fuck 'em.