my position here is simple: britain and france were suicidal in their ww2 decisionmaking even to contemporary observers. the harm to american whites is mostly evident with hindsight, but damn are the results glaring. it was the west's misfortune that it had so many corrupted/retarded statesmen at that critical time.    > no my numbers are accurate the ussr's entire population count in 1939 was around 170 million, giving a total male population of around 85 million. who knows how many of these were military-aged men, but i'm confident in saying that the axis didn't have 40-60 million of such men in their occupied territories.  i don't want to get bogged down in this since i see your point, but > and hes the perfect counter example i disagree. napoleon is a good example, because he fell into the same pattern. he had a revolution he carried with him across europe, but he also focused on french interests first and foremost. look at this map, then consider actions like the invasion of spain. were all of his actions done for the sake of his ideology, or was he pushing french interests? there's nothing inherently wrong with the latter as a french statesman, but several of those actions clearly bit him.  > napoleons army was 45% french you're right. it also disintegrated during the retreat in large part from non-french troops deserting, and the failure of the campaign immediately led to german uprisings because they had merely bid their time rather than provide true loyalty. they clearly weren't happy with the loss of territory in the west nor their general conditions. that would've been fine for napoleon if he'd won and had time to stabilize his regime in peacetime, but fate had other plans.  the conquered have rarely been ready allies of their conquerors. the idea that regimes can be so divorced from even their "home" populations that those populations would welcome a foreign army like we saw the ex-soviets do to the axis is rare occurrence.
United States