Why do American films never mention the Eastern Front of WWII?

Why do American films never mention the Eastern Front of WWII?

Because it would show the actual war.

They would also have to show Jewish concentration camp guards. - killing other jews, poles and other eastern europeans.

if my nan drew this, UK would be yuge, nazis a bit smaller and there wouldnt be any others

>UK would be yuge
Huge bastards that started the war maybe.

Yes thank you mister insecure, I am American, and I already was aware of that.

for every anti-american thread I start I get a 100 roubles deposited in my bank acount.

US should be about 10x the size of Japan.

What you're not aware is that the vast majority of american's don't know what actually happened in WW2. Of course you could say they don't have to know but that's not really an argument. History is important

because the bulk of what americans did was in the pacific theater?

why would they make movies about the campaign we barely got their in time for over the one we did single handedly?

also where is the tea cup?

This is probably true. It seems like for the Americans WW2 was all about holocaust, Jews and Japan.

Zhukov literally said that the ussr would have lost without lend lease

you're a huge guy

>muh ussr won
>completely forget about china
>the entire reason the japs didnt invade russia

;^)

>japanese army: 6.5 million
>us army: 16 million split between the pacific and European thearters

eh, it would be more like double.

>that Poland

>why would they make movies about the campaign we barely got their in time for over the one we did single handedly?
Yeah, no-one else fought in Asia at all. Not like the brits were holding off half a million yellow rats in Burma or anything.

explain? I know next to nothing about Chiner in ww2

nice assumption

its funny considering every nation has a skewed view of ww2 history from the brits to the chinks thats emphasis their countries involvement and downplay their reliance on others

for French

If the Brits wanted to make movies about their supposed Burma effort they could have tried to remain relevant after 1945.

Pro-Tip: They didn't, so nobody cares

>History is important

History is propaganda and the least important thing in the entire world. Go fuck yourself loser.

Japs invade china

The commie and nationalist chinks work together to fight the japs

They lose hard for a while but then bog down the japs

Hitler was japan to help fuck russia, but the japs are too deep in shit in china

Lots of warcrimes and shitloads of chinks die

Pretty substantial amount of supplies are sent to aid the chinks

They finally repell the japs once their navy gets fuck up by the usa

Russia literally comes in the last few days of the war to fight a virtually dead japan

But people always think
>muh eastern front

Even though china was just as bad and just as important

No, you go fuck yourself Sup Forumstard

yes you all coincidentally got real brave when we showed up

so we should remember you floundering in mud for years

How can you make a comment like this and completely neglect Aus/NZ participation in the pacific theater?

fucking F A G G O T

>History is propaganda and the one of the most important things in the entire world.

ftfy

>muh Sup Forums boogeyman

thats the least Sup Forums thing anyone could say you dunce, they all cross post on /his/

Looks like you were wrong after all, retard

>Zhukov literally said that the ussr would have lost without lend lease

And the Americans would have been crushed by the British in 1776 without French military aid

Yup it was bullshit. Hitler would've lost eventually to Stalin and the UK would've still held out on their own.

There was no stopping the Russian flood.

They perfected their own production line to the point where they just park their cheap tanks in fron the German's more expensive ones.

not even close. history is cool and all, but it's literally fairy tales and childhood riddles. it has zero meaning or relevance to anybody.

how so?

if that was a real Sup Forumsster they would have called you a cuck you dumb faggot :^)

>UK would've still held out on their own.
kek

Every country has their own version of history. You are naive if you think anyone cares about objectively writing down past events.

>soviets won by zerg rush
everytime

>t. national socialist

>And the Americans would have been crushed by the British in 1776 without French military aid

Yes

But how is that related to ww2 in any way?

>the UK would've still held out on their own.

>There was no stopping the Russian flood

kek this delusion

What was Hitler going to do ?

Keep losing ships and aircraft? Because all the Nazis could do was bomb already desolate areas.

There's a fucking reason why the Nazis never made landfall in the UK.

All they had to do was turtle and wait for the Russian to fuck things up.

Probably to an extent, but in Britain we learned a lot about the role of the Soviet Union at least. I don't think any other country is quite as far up its own arse as America.

So how come the Nazis couldn't take over Britain when they've overtaken the mainland?

It sort of doesn't need to be said at all.

Without lend lease USSR wouldn't just have been unable to deliver the killing blow to Germany, Germany would have succeeded in their invasion. Easily.

And to top it off Germany spent something like twice as much on the Western Front allies (that were also in Africa and the Atlantic) than they did on the Eastern Front.

I'm not American. It's just European-led anti-American revisionism that pushes the idea that USA wasn't the deciding factor in WW2.

Its really not even an issue of caring, no two or more parties will ever perceive an event in the same way to begin with

They wouldn't lose any aircrafts if it wasn't for Czech and Polish pilots that actually knew how to fly with Germans.

Americans aren't known for their smarts

>They perfected their own production line to the point where they just park their cheap tanks in fron the German's more expensive ones.

And made them using us machinery running on power from us oil while making parts with us steel, us rubber by workers eating us food, smoking us cigs and wearing us clothing.

They really could've won it all on their own

Honestly this is a sad fact.

Over here in Murica every Murican thinks the war was won because the US decided to play good cop and stop the terrible Nazi when it was the Soviets that took and did most of the damage.

thats funny because obviously the crucial resupplying of your own country and the soviets by america is massively downplayed

That doesn't work make sense, even syntactically, never mind contextually.

No deriding their achievements consider every country ever has had some sort of help/aid during a war effort.

didn't use the right strategy

Nazi Germany literally could've starved Britain to death if they had a few more U-Boats at the start of the war.

too bad that was a brit who originally made the comment you genuis

japs were utter shit on land, ussr really wouldn't need to devote much to shitstomp them again

Absolutely not. It's called the battle of the Atlantic and we learned all about it.

Approx 50% of USSR fighters were US made.
Shermans numbered something like 15% of the tanks USSR used.

British pilots were untrained and British army was a joke.

>Soviets that took and did most of the damage

Untrue

they weren't in an entire theater with any real prescience so impossible

Just because their strategy was "throw bodies at them until they're overwhelmed" doesn't mean their high death toll counts for much

The luftwaffe was practically broken by the time of the BOB thanks to attrition and little done to replenish theur forces.

The only reason they looked as strong as they did was udet trying to cover up his mistakes with tricky paperwork.

The luftwaffe failed absolutely in securing air superiority over even just the sw of england. They were also substantially behind the brits in naval strength. And they had a shit plan for invasion.

The Germans were not going to be able to invade england successfully, aka england would hold out by itself. Maybe in 43 the germans could invade successfully, but thats so far off as to be impossible to estimate.

Who was in Berlin again?

>bu..but muh Murican freedom

and the british were almost out of fuel to even fly their planes or ammunition

the strength of the airforce would be somewhat hurt if none of the planes could fly....

Lol, we literally destroyed the luftwaffe you cretin

French intellectuals disagree with your pic, you commie.

Yeah bro, you're totally right, americans destroyed the ebil Nazis single handedly with a bit of help from the UK. Who's even heard of those USSR no names amirite

you mean after the us airforce and brits bombed it for 2 years?

>ussr really wouldn't need to devote much to shitstomp them again

Oh yeah, the ussr fighting a two front war against the germans and japs. With the jaos pushing up to the urals. Obviously midget stalin would pull through given how he totally wasnt on the edge of losing going up against just the germans.

>Shermans numbered something like 15% of the tanks USSR used.

Yeah, and guess where the machines that produced all of the t-34s were made?

And where most of the fuel and ammo for those tanks came from?

Or where almost all the supply trucks the ussr used came from?

>le human wave meme

fuck off

>and the british were almost out of fuel to even fly their planes or ammunition

And so were the germans

The stores of french fuel were the only thing that sustained them through the BOB.

They were very close to running out when invading france itself. Too bad the frogs didnt blow their own fuel stocks up like the russians didm

>being so brainwashed by Hollywood american propaganda in just 50 years

Do all weak euros worship my big american cock?