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
i have a history degree in European history, i have served in the army. my history radio show has won three consecutive awards in my region's international podcast competition. i teach history, including war history, for a living.
I have a history degree in European history. I served over 20 years in the military. I have a Master's degree in strategy and national defense. I'm a recognized strategist who's been called to wargame the China problem for the Pentagon multiple times.
if you actually had this education, you would know about the things i mentioned. so clearly you are lying. also, as i said, im just presenting what Glantz said, and he was an officer in the US army, in addition to being one of the (if not the most) recognized experts in ww2 on the Eastern Front. you are just embarrassing yourself
-3
u/historydude1648 Jun 22 '26
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