Laukhi64

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by Laukhi64 7y ago

   It's true that a Nazi victory was practically impossible. But I have no idea how you can say that the US prolonged the war. Supplying the enemies of the Reich and fighting against them is not the sort of thing that causes wars to exten
2. 2.▲
   by Laukhi64 7y ago

   I know this very well. The US was late in a sense to the European theater, but the most substantial contribution of the US was lend-lease in any case. It's of course inaccurate to say that the US was the primary contributor to the Euro
3. 3.▲
   by Laukhi64 7y ago

   I don't really disagree with anything else you say, but... >When has a war with USA ever saved lives? I don't know. I think there was a war of note which might have been around the 1940s? It's fine to say that the costs of
4. 4.▲
   by Laukhi64 7y ago

   Apparently a literal coup involving a thousand people to prolong the war, even after the bombs had dropped, is the same as "being ready to surrender". And apparently the Soviets, who had essentially no capability to launch a amphi
5. 5.▲
   by Laukhi64 8y ago

   I don't see anything that I'd explicitly disagree with, but I also can't help but have a feeling that something is lost in translation. I'm not sure that Descartes and African philosophers are talking about exactly the s