This is an inchoate line of argument. You ask for precedent and then object to it being in the past.
WWII was the last time America was attacked by a foreign state. Ukraine is being attacked by a foreign state. The analogy shouldn’t be lofty enough to go over one’s head. If Russia rolls tanks into the Baltics we’ll have a new analogy for the ensuing half century. For the time being, I’m fine letting the precedent age.
...in Europe. There was war all over the world, hence, World War. The Soviets suffered tremendously _before_ and during that war (mostly at the hands of their own gov't). They didn't fight for their gov't, they fought for their home.
Please do not try and take an immensely complex topic and boil it down to the point it has no meaning.
Yes, the Soviets defeated the Nazi's with some distraction, tech and assistance from the Allies. China did a whole ton of work against Japan, they fought the longest and hardest.
Also, without the Marshall Plan (of which the Soviets were fearful of and denied themselves participation), Europe would not be Europe right now. Maybe Russia wouldn't be an economic wasteland today, forcing their gangster gov't to use an invasion of a sovereign country to prop up their oligarchy.
The Nazis are the eternal scapegoats of the Western elite mania. This mania underwrites their irrational doctrine and propaganda that defines current international affairs. And they never consider the preceding circumstances which led to the Nazis coming to power. It’s incredibly vacuous and irresponsible.
Germany designed its current constitution specifically around the lessons it learned when the Nazis exploited the Weimar system.
Every German high school student spends several months learning about the Nazi era, including the economic and geopolitical context.
You literally can’t escape it.
Don’t worry about our level of education. We’re fine, thanks.
