In 1945, Winston Churchill and George Patton wanted to just betray Russia...

White Guards were Churkas and Cossacks, who wanted to reinstall the dictatorship of the Tsar. They also wanted to enslave the people. They were also employed by the Brits, who wanted a weak British controlled Russia. True patriotic regardless of political convictions supported the Reds, jsut like Brusilov, the only Russian general, who were able to push back the Central Powers in the great war.

retard, the fighting skill of the individual soldier didn't matter in WW2
early war Wehrmacht was highly mobile with enough supplies and good doctrine, so it whooped the ass of the early war Red Army which lacked supplies, organization and good leadership (due to the purges)
the US Army was (extremely) well supplied, organized and so they whooped the ass of the late war Wehrmacht which lacked everything, same goes for the late war Red Army which had become and extremely formidable fighting force, it kinda switched roles with the Wehrmacht in 1943/44
the Finns only defended static positions, so they could inflict high casualties despite not being a very capable army, they could never conduct strategic operations like the major powers could

Experience obviously didn't win the war for the soviets. They had bad k/d's to the germans even at the end. Americans consistently outplayed germans, even when outnumbered. Soviets won their battles through numbers mostly.

t. knows WWII exclusively from playing CoD

Shigger, gtfo. I recognized you.

All true, except
>who wanted to reinstall the dictatorship of the Tsar.
In fact, there weren't many monarchists among Whites, most of them wanted Russia to be a bourgeois republic. Regardless, since all major White movement figures preferred to think over the Fate© of the Motherland ™ instead of taking realistic decisions and cooperating with one another, their defeat was expectable from the very beginning

>Knows his WW2 experience from yugoslav communist propaganda.

britbongs were the real victors
so with the burgers(industrial capacity,mass bombing policy) they would btfo russia

sounds great

Attached: pentti.jpg (500x503, 60K)

Attached: Allied_army_positions_on_10_May_1945.png (1216x769, 517K)

I wasn't born in the 60s and Titoists and Stalinists didn't get along, retard. Take your CoD memes elsewhere.

>Take your CoD memes elsewhere.

Only one who sperged about CoD was you. I have never played a CoD game in my life

Don't forget the based Hoholian army which saved Moscow. Back then Hohols and Katsaps were brothers, but the hohols chose to be German slaves.

>We would have been communists
The plan involved nuking Moscow. Communists would have been hiding I'm caves or dead.

Only way to carry a nuke back them was droping it from a plane, without air superiority, impossible

>But they had nukes... With nukes it could have worked.
That was a large part of the plan, nuking Moscow in particular. Many of the German veterans wanted to be rearmed and push the Soviets back at that point. So it wouldn't have just been Americans and the UK. You also had the non-communist forces from the future Warsaw pact countries.

As far as I remember, American bombers were superior enough to get to Moscow unnoticed. But I may remember it wrong.

Or they could strap them on v2 rockets and see what happen, but thats a stretch

Hungarians were above Italians.

>yugoslav is pro-sovoet
grug

We would all be communists.

There were also Germans and Russians. The reds had Jews, a half chuvash leader, Balts, Georgians, etc. I'm not really sure what your point is.

They were Russians. Whites weren't.

The strategic bombers of this time also didn't have the range to reach Soviet industry in the Urals or Siberia, which had been enough to defeat the Wehrmacht. The level of skill in the Allied armies was much lower than in Germany; they would have rapidly been forced off the continent and no guarantee public opinion would have continued to support the war indefinitely. There's a reason this wasn't done

Retard

>K/D
>Outplayed
Letting zoomers talk about history was a mistake.
You're the type of person to count South Vietnamese deaths as US kills in some fictional K/D contest
Not counting POW deaths, across the entire war Soviet and German casualties were similar.

Soviet and Eastern front Axis* since Soviets had to deal with hundreds of thousands of Romanians, Hungarians, Italians, Finns and Spainards that never seem to get mentioned (except when blamed)

>In 1945 the soviet army was in shatters. They would get annihilated by the fresh but battle experienced american troops
Are Swedes always this stupid or have you never heard of August Storm?

We would all be committed as communists.

Attached: 1557357587789.jpg (526x700, 85K)

>betray Russia
Hmm didnt they invade the british ally, Poland?

Die

Attached: 1557517743540.jpg (474x320, 23K)

There was no Polish state to invade

1939

>How about not supplying Russia in the first place?

Then Germans would win, which would be a disater. The Lend Lease and tactical alliance with the Soviet Union to crush Germans was actually a very good idea. The bad idea was not nuking soviets in the only period when Americans could do this without risking a massive retaliation, which was 1945-1950. Americans had enough technological and industrial potential to produce thousands of small-yield nukes launched from artillery in this period, it would be enough to decimate Russians. Gen Patton wanted to do this, but he was killed by soviet assasin.

>Against chinks that ran away for two weeks

>Gen Patton wanted to do this, but he was killed by Jewish assasin
FTFY

the b-29 can go from cyprus, malta, iceland, norway, iran or pakistan to the caucasus, which at the time held 100% of the soviet union's domestic oil supply. the b-46 (canceled because the allies were winning too hard) could go iceland-moscow round trip. good luck running the industry in the urals or supplying its arms to the front across the annihilated railroad network and without access to the metals of the donets basin. the "level of skill" was higher in allied armies than in germany. the soviets advanced 175 km/month against the depleted and bombed-to-fuck germans in 1945; get out a ruler and work out how long they'd need to get to e.g. antwerpen (under the delusional pretense that they ever would against the allies). public opinion brought the united states into the war way before american GIs were ever in europe, getting shot by foreigners -- that the public wouldn't support the war is a ridiculous argument after several years of war economy. the reason it wasn't done is that it was retarded, not that it was militarily unfeasible

t. murimutt
Germans never outnumbered the Americans but they always killed more of them. Germany needed fuel more than anything

>Hmm didnt they invade the british ally, Poland?

Churchill ordered to create a plan of military operation whose purpose was liberating Eastern Germany and Poland from soviets, actually.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

... but the USA was very sceptical about it, so it never happened. And maybe that's good that it never happened, because according to estimations, Poland's population would be reduced by at least another 10 mln if it happened. So in result, the WW2/WW3 would reduce us from 35 mln to less than 10. Would be much harder to get back to 40 mln ceiling after such a butchery, we would be second Hungary/Slovakia today.

By 17th September the Germans dismantleed the Polish state. Soviet Union took territories that were taken by an agressive Poland in 1920 when they were busy fighting the White Russian army

>germany even more devastaded
ugh...

Funny thing is that if this plan was accepted, Poles would be forced by the USA/UK to fight against soviets while having 100k Wehrmacht soldiers as companions. I can only imagine how brainfucking it would be.

Russia's territory consisted of millions square meters stolen from thousands of genocided, robbed and raped nations is the best evidence that it is actually Poland that is "aggressive", yeah.

If you're not Orthodox you're not Russian. You aren't even European, you're a mongoloid.

The people there were Rus people, Ukrainians and Belorussians. And Poland also invaded and annexed the Lithuanian capital (Soviets gave it back). To return the balance Soviets didn't just shrink Poland but gave them the historically Slavic lands of Germany which were richer anyway so I don't see why anyone would be upset

>And Poland also invaded and annexed the Lithuanian capital (Soviets gave it back).
You mean the city that was 90% Polish? I'm sure you support the independence of Kosovo too for the same reason.

>I'm sure you support the independence of Kosovo too for the same reason.

These maniacs were literally making nazi-tier genocide in XXI century Europe - and Russia was only throwing fuel to fire by supporting Serbian war criminals with money, weapon and military support. I hope that their muslim neighbours will do the same to them someday to make them understand how it is to be genocided.

So what if vilinus was invaded by Polish colonialists? It's the historic capital of Lithuania, it's theirs. Same how we built everything on Kosovo, it's ours regardless of how much colonialist rats live there now

Nothing meaningful in the city of Vilnius was built by Lithuanians.

Poland never really needed any land to the East from Narew river and Bug river except one sole purpose: to have a buffer zone protecting Warsaw from Russian attacks. That's literally why Polish soldiers established military outposts in XVI-XVII century as far as Smolensk-city (that is Russian today) - because this place was crucial from point of view of military strategy as a plug isolating Poland from barbaric Russian flood-attacks. Literally every single case of Polish soldiers paying visit to Moscow, plundering it and kicking Russian asses was a counter-attack after Russians trying to attack our defence lines.

That's why Poland is so defenceless and vulnerable today, because it lost its buffer zone such as Baltic states, Belarus and Ukraine after WW2. Russia owning Kaliningrad makes our geostrategic situation even worse.

>polish soviet war started by p*les
Yep, great defence. Stop complaing dumb fag. You deserve everything you got.

It was a time after WW1 when Poland was coming back on the world's map. If we didn't take our land that was taken away from us centuries ago, Poland would never appear on map again. Buffer zone in the East was needed from strategic reasons that i explained earlier: to protect us from Russian attacks that are constant and always exist. We also needed access to sea, we needed access to Silesia with its natural resources and we needed control over Moravian Gate. So we had to enter war with literally everybody around. It was just dogs eating dogs. If we weren't biting, we would be beaten and eaten instead.

>kill millions more so we get neoliberalsm 30 years early
Hard pass.

Millions of commies

>It was just dogs eating dogs. If we weren't biting, we would be beaten and eaten instead.

Russia was in the same situation as well with the mongols and all of the invaders from the East and South (Arabs, Ottomans, etc). Matter of fact, most European countries have been in this situation for their entire existance. To secure other countries for their protection is nothing new. Russia didn't do anything wrong, it's that you couldn't do anything right and protect your country whereas the Germans, French, Russians, etc. could.

Conquering and dominating Poland is not a condition sine qua non of existence of Russia. It is not an exsistential problem. Moreover, theoretically strong Poland should be an asset for Russia because it would protect its territorial integrity from attacks of Western countries. But somehow Russia never cared and still doesn't care about it and would gladly have a common border with Germany, right? So you can't really compare Russian motives with Polish motives. We needed lands placed east from Narew river and Bug river to use them as military outposts and buffer zones protecting us effectively from Russian military adventurism. Meanwhile Russians want to dominate Poland only due to their hunger for power, foreign land and stolen goods.

>Imperial Russia unified under a monarch
>Instead Commie shithole with economy worse than third world countries in the following years
What could of been...

Napoleon and Hitler showed that the west did indeed pose a threat to russia. The Mongols, Arabs, and Turks combined were way, way worse than anything you faggots ever experienced. Being under submission for 1000 years to a bunch of nomads that demanded tribute and raped, killed, pillaged, and burned is enough to make anyone paranoid
>A strong poland is good for russia
>just give me all of the land between krakow and moscow and we'll be good
Kek