12 minutes ago, RayC said:

The fact remains - which Trump apologists apparently refuse to acknowledge - is that personnel from many countries (not just NATO) were present in Afghanistan to support the US, and Trump insults them all by attempting to undermine the contribution which they made to the effort.

Correct, and they indeed fought side by side with the Americans, not hiding in the background. This embarrassing, disrespectful Trump bs has hit a nerve and controversy in every country who fought side by side and got their soldiers killed, by defending the article 5, which is used only once in history. NATO was there, no questions about the committment there. Denmark, Norway, Poland, Germany, Canada, Italy, France, Australia, UK and more, all lost valuable personnel, for USA's article 5.

Feck you, Donald Trump, you draft dodger miserable excuse of a human being. You make me sick to my stomach.

On 1/25/2026 at 5:05 AM, BarraMarra said:

The Yanks poke there noses in other countrys then ask for back up usually British special forces or our military. To the maga fans on here jog our memories of how long you were in Vietnam ?. The British Army went over 7,000 miles to the Falklands and kicked the Argies out in 74 days. The yanks would probably complete it in 2-3 years and flattening Stanley.

The US our supposedly number one ally said it couldn't be done even tried to stop us if Trump was President he would probably have imposed 1000% tariffs. It wouldn't have mattered what anyone else said we would still have done gone. Three days after the Falklands were invaded a task force set sail.

The Russians our supposed enemy told the Argies you have made a big mistake and you're going to get your arse kicked.

Says something when your enemy holds you in greater regard and has more respect for you than your ally.

I remember 1982 well in was the year I retired from the army after 22 years.

4 hours ago, Sydebolle said:

Trump proclaimed that the US entered the WW2 European theatre to liberate Denmark from the Germans;

Denmark was actually liberated by the British and Canadians- in the last days of the war Canadian Airborne troops were sent racing off to establish blocking positions to stop the Soviet push down the Elbe and into Schleswig Holstein and Jutland (Denmark). British and Canadian troops then moved into Denmark and took the German surrender.

Loose mouth has consequences. Boycott US products is another nail to the economy as US image takes another dive. Foreign holders of treasuries are off loading their portfolio as dollar goes down and rates go up. By end of his term, I dread to think what will become of US as the leading global economy and as leader of the global order.

He is the ultimate TACO. And such a wimp. One of the surest signs that society and mankind are not progressing, and not moving forward is this whole social media, tik tok, twitter inspired netizen thing, and the incredibly thin skin millions of people are afflicted with, these days especially Don the moron.

Having thick skin is a sign of high self esteem and knowing who you are, where you belong and how you fit into this world. Thin skin is so unattractive. It is such a sign of weakness and the constant social media criticism, name slinging, and use of derogatory terms towards the people who believe differently that you do, is weak. While I often criticize Trump and his policies a very rarely ever criticize his supporters, that allows it to get personal and ugly. Get over yourselves. Grow some thicker skin. 

What does someone do when they do not have a life? They become a netizen who spends their days blaming, being outraged, being a victim, pointing out what they consider to be the mistakes of others, being highly critical, and taking no responsibility for their own lives. They can't. They are too busy focused on the life of others. They don't have a life. 

****Trolling meme removed****

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

He never specifically referred to Brits.

If von der leyen criticized us you'd cream your pants.

I once read a quote describing Trump as “a short fingered vulgarian”. A refreshingly concise description which could equally be applied to yourself.

If they were to create a new definition for the word pathetic they would have to put Trump's name next to it, the man is such a gutter rat, he's such a lowlife, he is so lacking in anything even resembling integrity, he would say or do anything to try to dig himself out of a hole that was self created.

This is truly one of the most moronic and ignorant men of the 21st. century. Such a blazing fool. Such an embarrassment to America, which could have done so much better than this.

****Trolling meme removed****

33 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

If they were to create a new definition for the word pathetic they would have to put Trump's name next to it, the man is such a gutter rat, he's such a lowlife, he is so lacking in anything even resembling integrity, he would say or do anything to try to dig himself out of a hole that was self created.

This is truly one of the most moronic and ignorant men of the 21st. century. Such a blazing fool. Such an embarrassment to America, which could have done so much better than this.

****Trolling meme removed****

Farage would be equally embarrassing if he ever won in the UK.

1 hour ago, Bannoi said:

Farage would be equally embarrassing if he ever won in the UK.

Farage has just announced he will free any UK servicemen being put in front of a court by Starmer. Some are in there 70s that served in Northern Ireland and fought the IRA now our PM Starmer has give the green light for them to be charged.

“I wish US had parliament so a no confidence vote could be had’. Absolutely. The 25th Amendment does us no good because we will be stuck with Eye Liner Vance. That would be like crapping in your pants and you only change your shirt.

On 1/25/2026 at 1:35 AM, JonnyF said:

He was never referring to the Brits anyway.

It was fun to watch the sudden and fierce patriotism from the normally Brit hating Libs though. 😄

He said NATO troops and whichever way you look at it the Brits are part of NATO so we are quite right to complain about this moronic president.

4 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

Farage has just announced he will free any UK servicemen being put in front of a court by Starmer. Some are in there 70s that served in Northern Ireland and fought the IRA now our PM Starmer has give the green light for them to be charged.

Some of us are in our 80's. I cant say I'm happy about in fact I'm bloody angry that we are being betrayed.

I was in the army from 1959 - 1982 thats 22years (and a bit).

We first deployed to Northern Ireland in 1969 so I suppose I am one of those that could be affected.

Farage isn't Trump no matter how far up his arse he is.

Like Trump he lies and is only in for himself and even is he was to become Prime Minister would not have the power to pardon anybody only the king can do that. I hope that snake oil salesman Farage never gets into government.

Another Tory jumped ship today and joined Reform thinking if they stay with the Tory's they will lose at the next election and might have to get a proper job.

Reform is filling up with the failed old Torys that lost at the last election because we had had enough of them. Changing the name of their party does not change who or what they are.

I like to imagine them with pigs heads on and the House of Commons a giant trough full of pigs swill.

Scamming for the Board of Peace payment. The most elite club for despotic dictators.

On 1/25/2026 at 8:44 AM, MikeandDow said:

might be right !! just trying to remember the last time the yanks won a modern war !! oh thats right !! never !!!!

The 2nd WW is a modern war as far as history goes.

The Americans helped out in Europe in June 1944, the Brits tagged along after having done a runner at Dunkirk a few years earlier.

The Russians had mopped up millions of Germans and had been fighting alone for a few years and did 99% of the work in Europe, they would have taken over the whole of Europe and so the job of the Americans and the Brits was to mop up the few remaining German soldiers in Western Europe and get to Berlin as fast as possible to meet up with the Russians.

So Trump was almost right when he said the Europeans would be speaking German now without the action of the USA, the truth is they would have been speaking Russian.

The Americans won the 2nd WW in Asia 99% by themselves.

They also had to take over Japan as quickly as possible in order to stop the Russian getting there first.

Not long after the war alliances shifted as usual and the Russian then became the enemy of the West.

I am a Brit and naturally should be defending the UK with respect to the 2nd WW, but I hate it when politics/nationalism gets in the way of actual history.

On 1/24/2026 at 9:00 PM, BarraMarra said:

How many Special forces were sent to grab Maduro ? and how many Aircraft were flown in for 1 man ?

Enough to get it done with no losses.

On 1/25/2026 at 12:05 AM, BarraMarra said:

The Yanks poke there noses in other countrys then ask for back up usually British special forces or our military. To the maga fans on here jog our memories of how long you were in Vietnam ?. The British Army went over 7,000 miles to the Falklands and kicked the Argies out in 74 days. The yanks would probably complete it in 2-3 years and flattening Stanley.

The US could have done this in seven days.

On 1/25/2026 at 12:46 AM, Mister Fixit said:

I don't have the figures to hand, but I think there were more Brits and other countries forces killed by Yanks in blue on blue incidents than by any other country.

Prove me wrong.

It’s not accurate to say that more British and other Allied forces were killed by U.S. soldiers in “blue-on-blue” friendly fire during World War II than by any other country. Here’s what the historical evidence actually shows:

🪖 

Friendly fire in World War II

• Friendly-fire deaths were a recognized issue in WWII for all major militaries, including the U.S., Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, but there are no reliable statistics showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied troops than enemy forces did. The total number of such incidents and casualties is not comprehensively documented, and scholars caution that estimates vary widely. There is no authoritative figure showing that the U.S. was responsible for the majority of Allied friendly-fire deaths in WWII.  

• A U.S. Army study from 1982 found that friendly fire accounted for a small percentage of U.S. casualties in WWII — less than about 2%, with most of those occurring on the ground.  

  That doesn’t directly translate into deaths of foreign Allied troops, but it does indicate that friendly fire was a small slice of total combat losses for U.S. forces overall.

• WWII friendly fire incidents included tragic events like bombers accidentally hitting Allied ground troops or aircraft, but these were isolated incidents rather than a systematic pattern.  

• Notable single incidents (e.g., the Niš incident, where American aircraft mistakenly fired on Soviet troops and killed 30+ Soviet soldiers) did occur, but they were exceptional and not part of a large, systematic pattern of cross-Allied fratricide.  

🧠 

Why the myth doesn’t hold up

1. Comprehensive data don’t exist: WWII was chaotic, and both battlefield confusion and poor record-keeping make it impossible to produce accurate totals for friendly fire deaths by nationality.  

2. All sides experienced friendly fire: Axis powers — especially Germany and Japan — also had significant internal friendly-fire losses; even Allied forces suffered considerable fratricide among their own units.  

3. Friendly fire was small compared to enemy casualties: Total Allied and Axis military deaths numbered in the tens of millions, and friendly fire made up a relatively small proportion of combat fatalities.  

📌 

Summary

• Friendly-fire (“blue-on-blue”) deaths did occur on all sides in WWII, and there were tragic cases where U.S. forces accidentally killed soldiers from other Allied countries.

• There is no credible historical evidence showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied soldiers in friendly-fire incidents in WWII than other Axis forces did as a result of enemy action.

• Friendly fire fatalities represented a small fraction of total battlefield deaths, and reliable overall numbers for such incidents in WWII simply don’t exist.  

On 1/25/2026 at 1:21 AM, BarraMarra said:

You are correct Mister. It got that bad we had to paint our armoured vehicles with a brit flag so the gung ho American pilots could identify friends from foe.

You are lying.

13 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

The Russians had mopped up millions of Germans and had been fighting alone for a few years and did 99% of the work in Europe, they would have taken over the whole of Europe and so the job of the Americans and the Brits was to mop up the few remaining German soldiers in Western Europe and get to Berlin as fast as possible to meet up with the Russians.

Don't forget about all the supplies the USA sent to the USSR to keep them in the game.

Just now, TedG said:

Don't forget about all the supplies the USA sent to the USSR to keep them in the game.

The Russians move all of their armament factories a thousand miles east, they quickly manage to manufacture their own aeroplanes, tanks and other equipment and overran the Germans single handedly, surrounding them in some places.

I am not a supporter of the Russians, I just like fact to be facts, credit where credit is due.

18 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

The 2nd WW is a modern war as far as history goes.

The Americans helped out in Europe in June 1944, the Brits tagged along after having done a runner at Dunkirk a few years earlier.

The Russians had mopped up millions of Germans and had been fighting alone for a few years and did 99% of the work in Europe, they would have taken over the whole of Europe and so the job of the Americans and the Brits was to mop up the few remaining German soldiers in Western Europe and get to Berlin as fast as possible to meet up with the Russians.

So Trump was almost right when he said the Europeans would be speaking German now without the action of the USA, the truth is they would have been speaking Russian.

The Americans won the 2nd WW in Asia 99% by themselves.

They also had to take over Japan as quickly as possible in order to stop the Russian getting there first.

Not long after the war alliances shifted as usual and the Russian then became the enemy of the West.

I am a Brit and naturally should be defending the UK with respect to the 2nd WW, but I hate it when politics/nationalism gets in the way of actual history.

12 minutes ago, TedG said:

It’s not accurate to say that more British and other Allied forces were killed by U.S. soldiers in “blue-on-blue” friendly fire during World War II than by any other country. Here’s what the historical evidence actually shows:

🪖 

Friendly fire in World War II

• Friendly-fire deaths were a recognized issue in WWII for all major militaries, including the U.S., Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, but there are no reliable statistics showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied troops than enemy forces did. The total number of such incidents and casualties is not comprehensively documented, and scholars caution that estimates vary widely. There is no authoritative figure showing that the U.S. was responsible for the majority of Allied friendly-fire deaths in WWII.  

• A U.S. Army study from 1982 found that friendly fire accounted for a small percentage of U.S. casualties in WWII — less than about 2%, with most of those occurring on the ground.  

  That doesn’t directly translate into deaths of foreign Allied troops, but it does indicate that friendly fire was a small slice of total combat losses for U.S. forces overall.

• WWII friendly fire incidents included tragic events like bombers accidentally hitting Allied ground troops or aircraft, but these were isolated incidents rather than a systematic pattern.  

• Notable single incidents (e.g., the Niš incident, where American aircraft mistakenly fired on Soviet troops and killed 30+ Soviet soldiers) did occur, but they were exceptional and not part of a large, systematic pattern of cross-Allied fratricide.  

🧠 

Why the myth doesn’t hold up

1. Comprehensive data don’t exist: WWII was chaotic, and both battlefield confusion and poor record-keeping make it impossible to produce accurate totals for friendly fire deaths by nationality.  

2. All sides experienced friendly fire: Axis powers — especially Germany and Japan — also had significant internal friendly-fire losses; even Allied forces suffered considerable fratricide among their own units.  

3. Friendly fire was small compared to enemy casualties: Total Allied and Axis military deaths numbered in the tens of millions, and friendly fire made up a relatively small proportion of combat fatalities.  

📌 

Summary

• Friendly-fire (“blue-on-blue”) deaths did occur on all sides in WWII, and there were tragic cases where U.S. forces accidentally killed soldiers from other Allied countries.

• There is no credible historical evidence showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied soldiers in friendly-fire incidents in WWII than other Axis forces did as a result of enemy action.

• Friendly fire fatalities represented a small fraction of total battlefield deaths, and reliable overall numbers for such incidents in WWII simply don’t exist.  

14 minutes ago, TedG said:

It’s not accurate to say that more British and other Allied forces were killed by U.S. soldiers in “blue-on-blue” friendly fire during World War II than by any other country. Here’s what the historical evidence actually shows:

🪖 

Friendly fire in World War II

• Friendly-fire deaths were a recognized issue in WWII for all major militaries, including the U.S., Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, but there are no reliable statistics showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied troops than enemy forces did. The total number of such incidents and casualties is not comprehensively documented, and scholars caution that estimates vary widely. There is no authoritative figure showing that the U.S. was responsible for the majority of Allied friendly-fire deaths in WWII.  

• A U.S. Army study from 1982 found that friendly fire accounted for a small percentage of U.S. casualties in WWII — less than about 2%, with most of those occurring on the ground.  

  That doesn’t directly translate into deaths of foreign Allied troops, but it does indicate that friendly fire was a small slice of total combat losses for U.S. forces overall.

• WWII friendly fire incidents included tragic events like bombers accidentally hitting Allied ground troops or aircraft, but these were isolated incidents rather than a systematic pattern.  

• Notable single incidents (e.g., the Niš incident, where American aircraft mistakenly fired on Soviet troops and killed 30+ Soviet soldiers) did occur, but they were exceptional and not part of a large, systematic pattern of cross-Allied fratricide.  

🧠 

Why the myth doesn’t hold up

1. Comprehensive data don’t exist: WWII was chaotic, and both battlefield confusion and poor record-keeping make it impossible to produce accurate totals for friendly fire deaths by nationality.  

2. All sides experienced friendly fire: Axis powers — especially Germany and Japan — also had significant internal friendly-fire losses; even Allied forces suffered considerable fratricide among their own units.  

3. Friendly fire was small compared to enemy casualties: Total Allied and Axis military deaths numbered in the tens of millions, and friendly fire made up a relatively small proportion of combat fatalities.  

📌 

Summary

• Friendly-fire (“blue-on-blue”) deaths did occur on all sides in WWII, and there were tragic cases where U.S. forces accidentally killed soldiers from other Allied countries.

• There is no credible historical evidence showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied soldiers in friendly-fire incidents in WWII than other Axis forces did as a result of enemy action.

• Friendly fire fatalities represented a small fraction of total battlefield deaths, and reliable overall numbers for such incidents in WWII simply don’t exist.  

Yes the myth of the American friendly fire is as inaccurate as the myth of the lightening war tactics, the way the Germans were described as zooming though to France etc, that was invented to cover up the lack of action of the French and Brits who had a lot more tanks , equipment and soldiers than the Germans but just sat there and did not counter attack the Germans which would have ended the war there and then.

For example it took Germany six weeks to beat Poland who only had horse cavalries to fight with.

History is always rewritten by the victors.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

History is always rewritten by the victors.

And distorted by armchair warriors with an axe to grind!

7 hours ago, TedG said:

You are lying.

British armored vehicles used specific painted markings, tactical signs, and color schemes primarily to prevent friendly fire by allowing troops to quickly identify friendly vehicles. These markings, such as national stars, unit insignia, and colored geometric shapes, were crucial for distinguishing Allied vehicles from enemy ones in the chaotic, fast-moving battles of World War II. 

7 hours ago, TedG said:

You are lying.

Yes, British armored vehicles, including tanks and reconnaissance vehicles, used Union Jack flags and other high-visibility markings during the Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm, 1991) to prevent "friendly fire" incidents, particularly from US aircraft. 

15 hours ago, JonnyF said:

I can think of a much more concise 4 letter description of you.

It rhymes with hunt.

Desperate stuff Jonny. You're better than that.

7 hours ago, TedG said:

It’s not accurate to say that more British and other Allied forces were killed by U.S. soldiers in “blue-on-blue” friendly fire during World War II than by any other country. Here’s what the historical evidence actually shows:

🪖 

Friendly fire in World War II

• Friendly-fire deaths were a recognized issue in WWII for all major militaries, including the U.S., Britain, Germany, and the Soviet Union, but there are no reliable statistics showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied troops than enemy forces did. The total number of such incidents and casualties is not comprehensively documented, and scholars caution that estimates vary widely. There is no authoritative figure showing that the U.S. was responsible for the majority of Allied friendly-fire deaths in WWII.  

• A U.S. Army study from 1982 found that friendly fire accounted for a small percentage of U.S. casualties in WWII — less than about 2%, with most of those occurring on the ground.  

  That doesn’t directly translate into deaths of foreign Allied troops, but it does indicate that friendly fire was a small slice of total combat losses for U.S. forces overall.

• WWII friendly fire incidents included tragic events like bombers accidentally hitting Allied ground troops or aircraft, but these were isolated incidents rather than a systematic pattern.  

• Notable single incidents (e.g., the Niš incident, where American aircraft mistakenly fired on Soviet troops and killed 30+ Soviet soldiers) did occur, but they were exceptional and not part of a large, systematic pattern of cross-Allied fratricide.  

🧠 

Why the myth doesn’t hold up

1. Comprehensive data don’t exist: WWII was chaotic, and both battlefield confusion and poor record-keeping make it impossible to produce accurate totals for friendly fire deaths by nationality.  

2. All sides experienced friendly fire: Axis powers — especially Germany and Japan — also had significant internal friendly-fire losses; even Allied forces suffered considerable fratricide among their own units.  

3. Friendly fire was small compared to enemy casualties: Total Allied and Axis military deaths numbered in the tens of millions, and friendly fire made up a relatively small proportion of combat fatalities.  

📌 

Summary

• Friendly-fire (“blue-on-blue”) deaths did occur on all sides in WWII, and there were tragic cases where U.S. forces accidentally killed soldiers from other Allied countries.

• There is no credible historical evidence showing that U.S. forces killed more Allied soldiers in friendly-fire incidents in WWII than other Axis forces did as a result of enemy action.

• Friendly fire fatalities represented a small fraction of total battlefield deaths, and reliable overall numbers for such incidents in WWII simply don’t exist.  

Explaine this one then TedG.

7 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

Yes the myth of the American friendly fire is as inaccurate as the myth of the lightening war tactics, the way the Germans were described as zooming though to France etc, that was invented to cover up the lack of action of the French and Brits who had a lot more tanks , equipment and soldiers than the Germans but just sat there and did not counter attack the Germans which would have ended the war there and then.

For example it took Germany six weeks to beat Poland who only had horse cavalries to fight with.

History is always rewritten by the victors.

Just now, BarraMarra said:

Explaine this one then TedG.

Or this one

8 hours ago, TedG said:

You are lying.

You shouldnt call members liars TedG. The Truth could come back and bite your arse as can be seen on just 2 of the videos i posted there are many more most are American fails.

9 hours ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

The 2nd WW is a modern war as far as history goes.

The Americans helped out in Europe in June 1944, the Brits tagged along after having done a runner at Dunkirk a few years earlier.

The Russians had mopped up millions of Germans and had been fighting alone for a few years and did 99% of the work in Europe, they would have taken over the whole of Europe and so the job of the Americans and the Brits was to mop up the few remaining German soldiers in Western Europe and get to Berlin as fast as possible to meet up with the Russians.

So Trump was almost right when he said the Europeans would be speaking German now without the action of the USA, the truth is they would have been speaking Russian.

The Americans won the 2nd WW in Asia 99% by themselves.

They also had to take over Japan as quickly as possible in order to stop the Russian getting there first.

Not long after the war alliances shifted as usual and the Russian then became the enemy of the West.

I am a Brit and naturally should be defending the UK with respect to the 2nd WW, but I hate it when politics/nationalism gets in the way of actual history.

You do cite a number of facts but you also exclude many other relevant ones, at least two of which are critical.

If the UK (and Commonwealth allies) had surrendered, instead of fighting on alone, in 1940/41 then Germany would have won WW2. Yes, the US were providing the UK with supplies during this period, but the more pertinent fact is that the UK did not sue for peace at that time.

Wrt the Asian theatre, most historians believe that a US victory was inevitable but that it would have been a more protracted war - with greater US casualties - without the contribution of the other allies.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

You do cite a number of facts but you also exclude many other relevant ones, at least two of which are critical.

If the UK (and Commonwealth allies) had surrendered, instead of fighting on alone, in 1940/41 then Germany would have won WW2. Yes, the US were providing the UK with supplies during this period, but the more pertinent fact is that the UK did not sue for peace at that time.

Wrt the Asian theatre, most historians believe that a US victory was inevitable but that it would have been a more protracted war - with greater US casualties - without the contribution of the other allies.

But the British did not do much fighting, they stopped the invasion by Germany as they beat the Luftwaffe and as the British navy was strong the Germans could not invade, so they defended the UK, well really they were defended by the English channel, but they did not do much in the way of counter attacking the Germans.

They held on to the 'aircraft carrier' which was England until the Americans arrived and built up their forces there, then in 1944 their first major battle commenced.

By that time the Russians had done most of the work and the Germans at that time should have surrendered as the generals etc knew they were already beaten.

Germany would not have won ww2 by any means as they were outnumbered by the Russians who had a superior number of tanks and aeroplanes, guns etc, it was just a matter of time before they lost as they were too thinly spread.

Of course the USA would have won in the East but that does not take away the fact they won that part of the wold almost single handedly with great loss.

1 hour ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

But the British did not do much fighting, they stopped the invasion by Germany as they beat the Luftwaffe and as the British navy was strong the Germans could not invade, so they defended the UK, well really they were defended by the English channel, but they did not do much in the way of counter attacking the Germans.

They held on to the 'aircraft carrier' which was England until the Americans arrived and built up their forces there, then in 1944 their first major battle commenced.

By that time the Russians had done most of the work and the Germans at that time should have surrendered as the generals etc knew they were already beaten.

Germany would not have won ww2 by any means as they were outnumbered by the Russians who had a superior number of tanks and aeroplanes, guns etc, it was just a matter of time before they lost as they were too thinly spread.

Of course the USA would have won in the East but that does not take away the fact they won that part of the wold almost single handedly with great loss.

The British have never done much land fighting; we have always relied primarily on our naval superiority whether for defence or as an attacking force.

If the UK had surrendered in 1940, Germany would have been able to focus on defeating Russia. Germany would also most likely have withdrawn from its' pact with Japan at the same time - and almost certainly after Pearl Harbour - with the result that the US would not have entered the European theatre. Germany would have tightened the noose and effectively starved Russia of all resources. It may have taken a while but - other things being equal - Germany's superior organisation and resources (Russia's armaments were of poor quality) would have told in the end.

Rather like Trump re Afghanistan, you seemingly dismiss Allied losses in the Asian theatre as insignificant. Not only is this distasteful, it is incorrect. AI suggests that the US lost 111,606 combattrons in the war; the other Allies lost 28k. However, a further 35k+ POWs died, most of whom were Brits, Aussies, Kiwis or Dutch. If a distasteful pissing contest is going to be held, then it should be remembered that the number of losses (military and civilian) suffered by the Asian nations - especially China - during WW2 dwarf those of the Allies (including the US) with some sources putting the figure at over 25 million.