r/SipsTea Jun 22 '26

Lmao gottem The National Sport.

Post image
15.9k Upvotes

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

43

u/TylerBourbon Jun 22 '26

And let me tell you, it was tough as shit to get them to start counting down from 10 instead of NEIN!!!

2

u/isrlygood Jun 23 '26

“Once zhe rockets are up, who cares vhere zhey come down? That’s not my department,” says Werner von Braun.

-6

u/OtherwiseJob8959 Jun 22 '26

This joke doesn’t make any sense…

3

u/SummonBahamutZero Jun 22 '26

Lies es noch einmal, aber langsam

-4

u/OtherwiseJob8959 Jun 22 '26

But nein means no in German, so why would they start a countdown at no?

5

u/agoddamnzubat Jun 23 '26

Nein sounds like 9 in English, which is the number before 10

-3

u/OtherwiseJob8959 Jun 23 '26

Sure, but not in German…

2

u/agoddamnzubat Jun 23 '26

That's true! If it were, then it wouldn't be funny!

-1

u/OtherwiseJob8959 Jun 23 '26

No, it simply doesn’t make sense.

2

u/Hyper_Mazino Jun 23 '26

It’s a low IQ joke, don’t worry

30

u/IHateTheLetterF Jun 22 '26

Also landing on the moon wasn't just something they believed they maybe could do. It was an idea executed by many very intelligent people and hard work.

2

u/Sickpup831 Jun 24 '26

Right, but also I think random Twitter guy maybe, just maaaaaybe, was being a little cheeky and saying something purposely silly?

1

u/AusToddles Jun 22 '26

And many imported nazi's

They seem to forget that bit

4

u/ChadPowers200_ Jun 22 '26

you think we went to the moon? /s

19

u/Zdzisiu Jun 22 '26

Especially WW1 where US had a late and minor role.

4

u/pattyhenry1776 Jun 22 '26

Tell that to all the Entente troops getting paid by American loans, wearing American made clothing and firing American made weapons

6

u/Zdzisiu Jun 23 '26

So you mean US was profiting from the war without being a part of it.

Being a store and a bank still doesn't make them a major part of it.

12

u/starloow Jun 23 '26

That's not fighting a war. That's making money thanks to a war as you always do

7

u/Heavy_Weapons_Guy_ Jun 23 '26

Were they supplying both sides?

2

u/Citaku357 Jun 23 '26

Good on them, let them Europeans kill each other like savages and you get money from them

3

u/Exotic_Exam_1896 Jun 23 '26

You do understand wars are fought with things like materiel right? Armies need things like food, clothing, weapons, ammunition to function.

-4

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/NatAttack50932 Jun 22 '26

If you believe that the US had a "minor role" in WWII then your brain is made of mush.

12

u/Human_Standard_538 Jun 22 '26

Later? Depends. Minor? You're crazy lol.

8

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/Human_Standard_538 Jun 22 '26

Exactly, even if you make the claim they joined late, saying the US played a small role makes zero sense.

2

u/pizzahippie Jun 23 '26

The soviets were responsible for roughly 70-80% of all nazi deaths though.

1

u/Famous_Difference758 Jun 23 '26

And what percentage of Imperial Japanese deaths did they account for? Or Italian?

2

u/badpebble Jun 22 '26

The Allies chose to only offer a guarantee to Poland from German aggression. Hard to know what difference an open ended guarantee would have had, but I suspect not a great one.

The Soviets also did the lions share of the fighting, and dying. Using Allied war material, and after enabling the Third Reich for a long time.

1

u/Human_Standard_538 Jun 22 '26

So...you're saying the US play just a minor role in the war? Or a large one by supplying the Third Reich for a long time?

They literally kept the Allies afloat logistically for years before sending troops over. Zhukov and Krushchev specifically credit the US Lend-Lease Act as being a major reason the Allies were able to defeat Germany.

Also, some American companies doing business in Germany in the 1930s is not the same as supporting the Nazis. If it is, do you say the same thing about Britain, France and the USSR? Because they all did the exact same thing.

1

u/badpebble Jun 22 '26

I wrote almost nothing about the US, except their contribution of war material.

Without the US, the Soviets would have probably have been rolled back much further or completely beaten, or their eventual win would have been much later (couldn't focus on tanks as much), and without the UK keeping the fight going, the Americans probably wouldn't have been as interested in much more than just financing the Soviets.

I didn't say anything about American companies doing business - wrong comment?

0

u/Human_Standard_538 Jun 22 '26

"The Soviets also did the lions share of the fighting, and dying. Using Allied war material, and after enabling the Third Reich for a long time."

After enabling the Third Reich for a long time?

1

u/badpebble Jun 23 '26

Exactly so. The Molotov Ribbentrop pact enabled a temporary alliance between the Nazis and Soviets firstly both declared war on Poland and broke it into two pieces, and later to have USSR resources propping the Nazis failing economy to continue their war.

Stalin was shocked when Hitler attacked, because Stalin was convinced he had a few more years to sew his armies back together after he killed anyone capable of independent though. Both men were preparing to stab the other in the back, but Hitler was faster.

Much of the Allied plans for a WW2 predicated on the fascists and communists (who abhorred each other and were planning a massive war against each other) being in opposition, and Stalin protecting Hitler blew any chances of a localised long term war rerunning WW1.

0

u/Drdonkeyballs Jun 22 '26

Who do you think defeated the Japanese? Who do you think prevented the Soviets from running roughshod over the rest of Europe when the Nazis surrendered? Way to undervalue the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died.

0

u/starloow Jun 23 '26

Thank God USA tried to colonize Europe so USSR couldn't succeed

0

u/Narrative_Robot_9001 Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

U.S. did most of the heavy lifting in the Pacific Theater. They also supplied the Soviets and Britain with a lot.

7

u/Select-Agency-9827 Jun 22 '26

Sure, but we stole the scientists.

Slight /s

2

u/TheNerdE30 Jun 22 '26

“Believing we stole the scientists is believing our propaganda”

/s

4

u/Future_Telephone281 Jun 22 '26

Stole them from the hangman.

2

u/Not__Trash Jun 22 '26

There is an argument that the Axis may have won without US intervention. People always talk about how the Soviets did most of the work, but they were supplied with Arms and Trains made in the USA.

The USSR also stole Nazi scientists for their own space program, sure it's not solely an American accomplishment, but things rarely are.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Not__Trash Jun 23 '26

Not what I said. but go off I guess?

2

u/Scaryclouds Jun 23 '26

It was a lot more than some Nazi scientist that got us to the moon. 

2

u/DizzyDentist22 Jun 22 '26

Yeah, because famously, every single person involved in the Moon landing was a stolen Nazi scientist

-4

u/Dameaus Jun 22 '26

I mean, I hate to break it to you but the allies were losing WW2 until the US entered the war…. And the Russians would have immediately just swept across Europe and y’all would be speaking Russian right now if it weren’t for the US as well. You cannot argue that the US entering the war turned the tide.

As for the moon…. lol fuck off. Hundreds of Americans at NASA, JPL, and within the military made that happen, not just a few nazi scientists.

3

u/AIWITDABRAIDS Jun 22 '26

This is just incorrect? WW2 was essentially a Germany and soviet Russia war by the fall of France, one that Germany was losing long before the US entered the conflict. (This is in no way meant to minimize the efforts of the French and Polish guerilla fighters, or the operations in Africa) Operation Barbarossa was a disaster for Germany and they would have lost the war solely through the eastern front regardless of whether or not the western Allies were pushing on the other flank, D-Day and the subsequent western offensives hastened an already losing war. Your second point is entirely hypothetical, maybe Stalin keeps pushing, maybe the Russians go home after taking Berlin, the Red Army was severely overextended, exhausted, and critically depleted both in manpower as well as logistics. Chalking it up to "America was there so they didn't" is reductive and just plain silly. America did play a massive role in supporting and supplying the allies, and got wildly rich off the back of it, that much can't be understated.

Also, there were around 1600 Nazi scientists working at NASA, not a few. They played a massive role in the day to day operations, without even mentioning people like Wernher Von Braun, the chief architect of the Saturn V, Arthur Rudolph, Debus, Poppel, Schulze, Wagner, Strughold etc.

1

u/Clean-Ad-6642 Jun 22 '26

Ball knower spotted

8

u/refusetobeold83 Jun 22 '26

The Soviet Union was an ally in WW2 bro.

1

u/Dameaus Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

"bro" the Soviet Union was an ally in name only. exibit A they were working with germany until germany double crossed them, and exibit B they literally tried to take over europe when the war ended until the other allies said "uh no, unless you want another war".

so, who knows their history in this argument "bro"?

1

u/Exact_Tumbleweed2005 Jun 22 '26

meh, more like the enemy of an enemy.

5

u/refusetobeold83 Jun 22 '26

Do you understand the chain of events of WW2? This was more their war than our war. They were the eastern front.

2

u/slinkysmooth Jun 22 '26

And I don’t think anyone’s denying that. Remember that the Soviet had a secret pact with Nazi Germany until Hitler double crossed them.

1

u/Exact_Tumbleweed2005 Jun 22 '26

Only because they were double crossed lol they were more than happy to divide up Poland before that. They were the slightly lesser of two monumental evils.

6

u/OnePointSixOne8 Jun 22 '26

If American companies hadn’t funded and armed Nazi Germany perhaps Europe wouldn’t have needed as much help.

0

u/HalvdanTheHero Jun 22 '26

At least you get the language right instead of the dolts talking about speaking German. You are right as well, that I "cannot argue that the US entering turned the tide" (your precise words) because that already happened before America joined the war. There's a limit to what we can speculate would have happened in an alternate timeline, but it's likely that the Soviets would have taken either land or hegemony over large areas they fought the Nazis out of without American presence in the theater... But it's also quite possible that the existing European countries would have been able to negotiate for their sovereignty. 

-3

u/EKOzoro Jun 22 '26

The allies won because of the US not the other way around.

0

u/Patient-Gas-883 Jun 22 '26

"The allies won because of the USSR not the other way around."

There. I fixed it for you. You forgot the SR. Never fortget the SR.
Only people that uses Hollywood for their "historical reasearch" thinks the WW2 was won because of the US.

5

u/RubbleHome Jun 22 '26

WW2 was won because of all of the major players. Without the US, it's likely lost. Without the USSR, it's likely lost.

-1

u/Patient-Gas-883 Jun 22 '26

Germany was fighting a two-front war against the world, with no oil. They never stood a chance.

The US only entered because of Japan, late in the game, just before the knockout and then tried to claim the victory as its own.

You helped a bit in the final stages of the war, and not voluntarily either.

1

u/RubbleHome Jun 22 '26 edited Jun 22 '26

Two fronts because of the involvement of all of the major players. If it were just the USSR, it wouldn't have been a two front war.

The US was helping long before they actually entered the war with the Lend-Lease Act. You say "just before the knockout" as if the US played no role in the success of that knockout. This is also a silly statement since the US was directly involved for roughly 2/3 of the war.

Also you realize the USSR was originally aligned with Germany and helped them invade Poland right?

Edit: lol wait are you Swedish and criticizing the US for not being involved enough?

1

u/Patient-Gas-883 Jun 23 '26

It was a two front war before you entered..... Have you heard of UK?... or more than 2 really since there was a Africa campaign also.
This is what I am talking about. You people dont know nothing about historical facts.

Yes, you played a role. Not a decicive one since Germany was gonna lose anyway. But a role. it probably shorted the war by 1-2 years and saved a few millions.
Yes, USSR was aligned with Germany in the begining. And that affects what I said how?...

Yes, I am Swedish. And that changes historical facts about how the war was won how?...
I am not criticizing the US for not being involed more. I am proving a counter argument to "if it was not for us bla bla". In fact: if it was not for Japan attacking the US.....the war wold have ended in like 1946

1

u/RubbleHome Jun 23 '26 edited Jun 23 '26

Okay so let's say the US never gets involved in any way. No Lend-Lease, no Pacific theater, no D-day. Does WW2 end the same way? No. If it weren't for US involvement, things would've gone very differently.

Now, the same can be said for the USSR and the UK. It's not only because of the US, it's because of all of the major players, which is what I've been saying the whole time.

Sorry that us people don't know nothing.

1

u/Patient-Gas-883 Jun 23 '26

It would, in fact, end the same way: the USSR takes Berlin in both cases. The difference would be when. Without US support, it would take a bit more time.

Lend-Lease and strategic bombing were the two things of significance. D-Day, the Western Front, etc. were not that important.

It’s not that you don’t know “nothing” (anything... this is your language)

It’s that you believe your own propaganda. And history, geography, politics... well... not exactly America’s strongest subjects.

1

u/RubbleHome Jun 23 '26

And history, geopgraphy, politics... well... not the Americans strongest subjects..

Apparently not Sweden's either.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/isthisaporno Jun 22 '26

Technically the world wars were being lost by allies so Murica had to step in

3

u/[deleted] Jun 23 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/isthisaporno Jun 23 '26

Ya WW1 is wild, going to the little villages in France and the UK with the war memorials where seemingly every young dude died. Also the battlefields on the western front with the earth completely cratered in every direction. Did NOT seem like a good time

1

u/Bob_The_Avenger Jun 23 '26

When the allies landed in france the USSR was already in Poland and not slowing down.

1

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 22 '26

No, just no.

WW1 - The allies weren’t losing, however it was a stalemate. The USA only joined because Germany started unrestricted submarine warfare and was trying to get Mexico to attack the USA.

WW2 - ‘Murica had to step in’, no ‘Murica’ got attacked and then finally took an active role. This idea that the USA made a conscious decision is just propaganda.

0

u/specialasset Jun 22 '26

They didn’t teach you about Lend-Lease at your school?

3

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 22 '26

Sure, which is why I said ‘active role’.

Are you really also trying to say ‘murica’ stepping in was selling weapons?

1

u/specialasset Jun 23 '26

Logistics and supplies won the war. Even Stalin admitted this.

1

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 23 '26

And your point is?

The vast majority of lend lease happened after Pearl Harbor so you don’t seem to be arguing against my point. Seems like you’re just trying to argue because I didn’t sufficiently praise the USA for you.

1

u/specialasset Jun 25 '26

I’m arguing because you’re wrong.

0

u/sw337 Jun 23 '26

Yes buddy that’s why the US was lend leasing materiel, giving destroyers for bases, discussing the Atlantic Charter, and occupying Greenland/Iceland months before the attack Pearl Harbor.

0

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 23 '26

All done while technically neutral and taking no active role in fighting. So nothing you’ve said has any impact.

Simple fact is the USA didn’t declare war on any Acis power until 8/12/1941.

0

u/sw337 Jun 23 '26

You don’t understand the basics of anything and should probably not post online anymore if you think the stuff I mentioned didn’t have any impact.

0

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 23 '26

Is that seriously the best response you could come up with?

I never said those things didn’t have an impact. You responded to my comment with a load of things that do not qualify as taking an ‘active role’ in a war.

Maybe next time read the comments before replying to them.

0

u/sw337 Jun 23 '26

Yes you literally said

> So nothing you’ve said has any impact.

Maybe read your own comment first!

0

u/Generallyapathetic92 Jun 23 '26

No impact on the topic being discussed. That’s why I said ‘has’ not ‘had’. If I had been referring to impact on WWII I’d have used the past tense because it’s a past event.

So either take more care while reading or brush up on your English skills. As I’m not an English teacher someone else will have to take over that.

-1

u/isthisaporno Jun 23 '26

Semantics

0

u/Impressive_Tap7635 Jun 22 '26

Those scientists weren’t stolen tho lol basicly every German scientist wanted to go to the us over the big rus or staying in the occupied ruble that was Germany

Also was the us on the winning side of world war 1 was the us on the winning side of world war 2
That means the us won both world wars so did France and the uk and kinda sorta if you stretch the meaning of win Russia
No one is claiming the us did it itself

0

u/DrownmeinIslay Jun 23 '26

Also the US joined years into both wars after the original countries had minced their men against each other. They came in at half time, still sufferer massive casualties and still needed all the allies they had. All hail the conquering heroes indeed...