> so was russia, in fact russia was more battered than anyone and in the midst of a civil war. it's military was collapsing and losing on all fronts until the us arrived in the west. the bolsheviks could have been toppled easily by the allies, but the allies put almost no men into actually overthrowing them. they simply didn't want the bolsheviks defeated. red army was 5m men. white army had significantly less. the west would have to send at least 2m men to turn the tide and even then it would be a very devastating war. russia wasn't as devastated by the actual war because lenin gave germany land in exchange for peace, they stopped fighting. the only problem russia had was inflation because of money printing for wwi. so like i said, your only option is to send 2m soldiers into russia and hope that the west interference won't push more people towards the bolsheviks. it is clearly unrealistic > they did very very little 20% of the white army capacity is not very little. > white army: 1,023,000 (peak) czechoslovak legion: 50,000 (peak) british army: 57,636 u.s. army: 12,950 japanese army: 70,000 and like i said, they caused the war to last longer with their equipment. russia only started to industrialize and had shit weapons. western weapons to the white army were crucial given that red army was much larger. they would have been steamrolled if they were equipped equally > they are quickly replacing themselves with brown turk migrants, which ironically even the commies were better on in the old days. in the communist era it was white russians settling central asia. under jew-putin it's russia that is getting flooded with brown muslims.  so now communists are based all of a sudden? it's like you have no morals or views other than russia bad, west good
Slovenia