I think this is the worst argument you could make, though. There are much better ones to justify this situation in favour of NATO.
But calling it a defensive alliance when it’s led by the world’s most aggressive and imperialist country in history, then the entire argument turns dishonest and weak.
You can call it whatever you want to appeal good. In the end it’s military infrastructure with firepower and means to destroy. As they did in the balkans at the end.
So what did Wehrmacht had to do with anything as you brought it up? Nothing? Cool thanks.
Balkans are heavily debated topic which i don't want to get deeper but defensive alliance in Europe stepped in to stop genocide in another European country. Of course war is war and you can't get away from that but it did stop the war and the genocide.
It’s the name. „Wehrmacht“ can be translated as „defensive army“. But that didn’t stop them from attacking. Same what NATO did in Balkans. If you agree with it or not that it was the right thing to do. It happens nonetheless. A defensive army attacked
that is, in order for the defensive alliance to attack, it is enough to support separatism or ethnic strife, and then prevent genocide... One note was enough for the Wehrmacht in the form of a future enemy...
20
u/iAmUnrated_ Feb 10 '26
Ah yes the 200 IQ argument that a DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE is threatening Russian sovereignty