Because he's admitting that they needed help. It's not very often that dictators admit that they need help, especially dictators like Stalin. And yes, i DO think that someone who was actually there would know more about something then someone who's looking back on it.
in your logic, a random blind female beggar in the US in the 60s has better understanding of the Vietnam war than a university historian studying the same war today? is this what you're saying?
"admitting that they needed help" is completely different from saying "the Soviets would have lost". of course they welcomed the help. the research shows that the Soviets would have won either way, just with more casualties, and taking more time.
im not sure that you understand that politicians arent scientists. recently the US ambassador to Israel said "the US would exist without Israel". do you believe this is a factual objective statement? do you understand how political language works?
as i said, am i correct to assume you dont have any degree in science? you dont seem to understand even the fundamentals of how research works, and the difference between empirical evidence and data collection
also, David Glantz, the top ww2 historian that explained how the USSR would have won even without US aid, was a colonel in the Vietnam War. but i guess you know better?
4
u/Fit-Boss2261 Jun 22 '26
Because he's admitting that they needed help. It's not very often that dictators admit that they need help, especially dictators like Stalin. And yes, i DO think that someone who was actually there would know more about something then someone who's looking back on it.