all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Not sure what this is trying to say. Innumerable and sustainable are two different factors.

Both can be right but in sheer numbers there's little comparison.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    One key factor for these numbers is that russians are fucking idiots, starting with Stalin and going all the way down. Look at how stupidly they die now, and imagine they were stupider back then.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 4 months ago

    yes, so the germans lost. What's the point?

  • source
  • 19 comments in c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 20 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    My brother the Germans didn’t take In Christ sustainable casualties eithe

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I don't think any casualties are sustainable in christ

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago

    If the US/UK had decided to support the Nazis instead of the USSR, then the Nazis would have won. It would be idiotic for the US/UK to do so, but they could have.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (11 children)

    This is a basic history concept is it not? Combined with WW2 fact

    Russia - whether it wants to or not - always ends up fighting wars in a slow meat grinder way, but because of uts superior pooulation it wins every 'War of attrittion' against another european power.

    Germany on the eastern front did manage to push into russia but, as per usual, the cold and the lack of infrastructure (settlements more spaced out than in core Europe) causes immense suffering for them - eventually they are driven back. Many casualties, of course.

    So i say that because i'm baffked why someone would know the top statement and need to be corrected with the bottom one. People should learn both together - the WW2 fact - and with it, the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    Russia didn't win World War I, nor the Afghanistan war. Both would have been wars of attricion, according to my understanding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    I'll need to read up on afghanistan war but for ww1 i'd say that russia lost because it had a revolution co-occuring and it was already a collapsing country

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago*

    And history books would say that the revolution occurred because Russia lost (and specifically the Tsar lost, after publicly announcing he was taking control and stop the stream of Russian defeats).

    Also if they couldn't win the war, they shouldn't have started it in the first place. That they were unable to recognise their own military strength and started a war that would destroy them is a failure in and of itself. And to clarify, I'm talking about WW1 not Ukraine here.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    the historical truth that Russia wins every war of attrition.

    You don't need history to know this is bullshit. Current events are enough to prove this wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    Maybe Russia has won every defensive war of attrition, but certainly not every war its embarked on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 months ago

    Part of why it worked for the Russians though, is because for every ten soldiers they only had one gun. Kill four soldiers, you've still got the same number of guns pointed at you. Now multiply it by a hundred or a thousand and see how, while not exactly sustainable, it ends up working as it did in the right circumstances. Like, I dunno, brutal winters with nowhere to retreat to and an enemy struggling with the reality of logistics in the same conditions

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    The yankkkeee doodle dandy was always playing bothside...

    like true corpoturd they merged with the nazis in the end.

    Kinda like the ziopigs tried to do with our military recently...

    thank gawd that didn't happen but probably will in the future for we are far from over.

    The USA is a brutal imperialist empire, fascist are the useful idiots of empire, fascism is capitalism in crisis and imperialism is it highest form.

    The book of history never closes

    No war ever ends but there is no war but the class war

    Capitalist pull the levers that cause war to drag us and other countries down on purpose.

    We call them stupid but they know what they are doing.

    Every dicktator has their inner circle of turds

    the ameriturds have a revolving head but still is a fuedal system where electoralism can never thrieve.

    You need leverage back up by VIOLENCE... just is the way it is.

    Iran understands this...sheet North Korea gets it.

    I cheer on merikkkas enemies not because they are ideal but filled with workers like me

    I cheer on the slowing down of the horrific plans of the USA

    Yet we will pay the debt

    Next will be internal confict.

    Booooyahhhhhhh

    Now bathe me with the glorious downvotes 🙃

    Hitler's American Friends: The Third Reich's Supporters in the United States

  • source