That’s blatantly false. The Russians did not annex Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, or eastern Germany.
Your claims about Russian KIA have been repeatedly shown to hold little weight, given the absurdity of your past statements.
Ukraine is "beating them" every day but Putin keeps sending more men to die. Killing 500,000 Russians and over 1000 more every day is tedious work but Ukraine is up to the task. A million Russians will die in Ukraine before this is over.
Gee, coming from the guy who claimed Russian tanks could be easily destroyed by machine guns and that every single wounded Russian was actually dead because Russia supposedly didn’t have field hospitals, such claims are utterly laughable.
So it must be on the same day, same hour, same minute, same second, etc...?
Something occurring weeks after something else is not “joint”.
So then Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany were not jointly involved in WWII, and did not have a military alliance, having entered the war in different years?
Mussolini didn’t jointly invade France with Hitler, no. He invaded weeks later. The two attacks were not carried out at the same time, nor was there any sort of coordinated strategy between the Germans and Italians during the invasion of France.
What does "alongside" mean? Is there a range beyond which no military alliance can ever be possible? Like if, during a battle, a German and Italian soldier were always 10+ feet apart = no alliance, but if they were 9 feet apart (or less) = alliance?
Seeing as the Soviets and Nazis never signed any treaty of alliance, nor sent troops into combat together— as, like, for example, on D-Day, where American, British, Canadian, etc troops carried out a joint invasion of the Normandy region— trying to pretend they had a military alliance is simply not supported by the facts.
What's a "treaty of alliance?" Those words precisely must be at the top of the document or else there's no alliance? Are we now declaring that informal alliances are not a thing?
So is there a min/max range? You never answered the question. What does "together" mean?
You're the one that's adding new requirements and refusing to answer questions. Sounds more like you're flailing around helplessly, making up new standards on the fly to avoid admitting the obvious or having your criteria look comically contrived.
If you don’t even know the basic criteria for the discussion, why should anyone take your claims seriously? Desperately grasping at straws because you don’t like having to face up to the fact the Nazis and Soviets weren’t allies doesn’t change the historical facts.
Like I said, you don't want to elaborate on any of your contrived alliance standards because you know whatever bullshit new excuse you invent to defend Russia is just going to make your argument look even dumber than it already is. So you go back to rambling about "invincible US military" Typical...
Coming from a guy who has repeatedly demonstrated his lack of historical knowledge in favor of desperately clinging to a fiction about the Soviets supposedly being allied with the Nazis— and who apparently thinks the Nazis were socialists, which only further shows how little worth your narrative has— that’s a laugh.
And now you're regressing to plain old ad hominem.
It’s not “ad hominem” to point out what you apparently believe. If you acknowledge the fact that the Nazis were a genocidal far right organization who were not even remotely socialist, all you have to do say is so.And now you're regressing to plain old ad hominem.
I don't agree with the "not even remotely socialist" part.
Of course, if you refuse that rather clearly answers that question
Gee, thanks for proving me right. Makes one wonder what the point of you whining about being called out on it.
The only thing you're proving is that you will post until the end of time to get the last word in to avoid talking about the actual subject of our discussion, which is what makes a military alliance a military alliance.
Oh, I’m more than happy to keep pointing out the actual historical facts and dismantling your rather flimsy narratives.
So what you're saying is that because the USA is bad, Russia must therefore be good?
I’m not obligated to accept blatantly false claims like “Russia annexed all the Warsaw Pact states” just because American apologists feel entitled to alternate facts, sorry.