The Counterfactor

fnaf fan songs come in 2 forms

I also think Peter Bergen's 2021 biography of Osama bin Laden does a good job explaining how the Iraq War benefitted Al-Qaeda more than it did the United States.

I recently read a DTIC paper about US-Iran relations after 9/11

The more I read about 2000s foreign policy, the more I hate the Supreme Court for Bush v. Gore.

Next time, less generalizations, more complexity.

I guess Joachim von Ribbentrop and Joseph Goebbels weren't Nazis.

I didn't immediately block him, it was only after he started asking me to provide evidence for him to prove a point he was making. It's not my job to provide evidence against myself during a debate lol.

I know a lot of people mention the wheat from Ukraine, but even if all the food had been taken and the local population left to starve, it still wouldn't have relieved the famine conditions in Germany at the time.

It's a reflection of the hubris that cost Germany in both wars. Just like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the conquest was the easy part, the administration was the hard part.

I think Brest-Litovsk is very noteworthy because of how much of a worse position it placed Germany than it a lenient settlement had been made, with the need to keep a million troops in the East to maintain unpopular puppet governments for little to no resource benefit.

YouTube video by The Counterfactor The Invasion That Doomed Japan

I've actually spoken about this before on my channel.
It's a very long video, and there are a lot of endnotes, but it's the most robust case for such a move you can find anywhere online.

The problem for Germany in terms of negotiations with the West was the insistence on total victory when the military position didn't justify it. For example, Germany rejected any notion of Belgian independence until the summer of 1918.

Well no, even as early as 1943 Japanese targets were the ones on the table. I recommend you read the article.

This is basically what Erich Raeder advocated in 1940. Bevin Alexander's "How Hitler Could Have Won World War II" probably has the best explanation of his plan.

Except Hitler didn't invade Russia and France at the same time. Russia was a de facto ally until after France was conquered.

But Wilhelm II invaded France and Russia at the same time.

So you refuse to engage with evidence. See ya.

Also you never responded to my point (backed by evidence) that the idea of inevitable German defeat is outdated pseudohistory. So that's a burden of rejoinder on top of Hitchens' Razor.

Since you can't refute that position, it stands as fact within this debate. Your argument is pseudohistorical.

You have no proof for either of these assertions, Hitchens' Razor.

You wanna talk about "intellectual honesty" when I am being honest. My handle stays right.

The point is irrelevant to the current discussion, but the bomb was always planned to be used against Japan.
ieer.org/resource/com...
Not to mention that without Britain, no second front would have been possible, and Russia would have lost a one-front war.
jamesfodor.com/a-quantitati...

In a debate like the one we're having, it's YOUR job to challenge my beliefs. The challenge you have presented is pitiful, because your beliefs are baseless.

So it's MY job to provide evidence to support YOUR position because YOU don't have it?

I'm taking this as a concession that you can't refute my position. Have a good rest of your day.

If you check my profile, it reads "Rare counterfactual history youtuber who knows how to cite sources."

Ain't gonna read anything else.

Why the Allies Won Why the Allies Won [Richard Overy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Why the Allies Won

Not to mention the "inevitable German defeat" thesis is pseudohistory, and has been pseudohistory for at least 30 years.
www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-W...

That is true, although more preparation probably would not have saved the 1918 offensive, particularly with the chaos in Russia even after Brest-Litovsk.

That's true, although after the revolution in Germany I doubt the Allies would have been willing to agree to, let alone try to maintain, a system of de facto German colonialism in the East.

England was never going to lose in the sense of being invaded and occupied, but a negotiated peace was not implausible, particularly in 1942 when Britain almost left the war.
www.amazon.com/1942-Britain...

I'd be as bold to assert that after another seven months, the majority opinion still would not have changed. You tell me when "eventually" would have become "now."
www.jstor.org/stable/172971

Seven months of "not now" does not exactly breed confidence in an assertion of inevitability. Especially when FDR himself was not confident in any inevitability.

Germany's gains against Russia were probably untenable given how unpopular and unstable the governments set up there were.

Why the Allies Won Why the Allies Won [Richard Overy] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Why the Allies Won

If anything in this discussion is "baby-like," it's your assertion of historical determinism, which has been rejected by historians for decades.
www.amazon.com/Why-Allies-W...
Asserting that humans play a part in human history is not "baby-like." Grow up.