There are many retards on here and elsewhere who falsely believe and claim that even though the Soviets ultimately won in WW2, they did so at insane losses of 4:1 or 5:1 or whatever. This is bullshit and easily debunked if you look at the wikipedia article on the topic:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II)

There were 18-24 million civilian casualties on the Eastern Front. Most of them were on the Soviet side, and I think a lot of people lump those in as part of Soviet losses and that's the main reason where this false narrative comes from. But since those were civilians they should not be folded in as military losses.

Actual military losses according to the article was this:
>5.1 million Axis soldiers
>8.7-10 million Soviet soldiers

Yes, the Soviets did lose more soldiers. That's undeniably correct. But as you can see the ratio was less than 2:1. And most of the Soviet losses were from the first months when they were taken by surprise and whole armies got encircled captured. That's when and where and how most of the Soviet losses happened.

This narrative that the Soviets only managed to win by having infinity manpower and throwing half-armed (one soldier had the gun, and the other would have to loot it off his body after he died) human waves against entrenched German machine gun nests and fortified bunkers is complete and utter horseshit.

Also, the USSR did not have infinite manpower to just throw away like that. At their peak, the Axis powers even had a greater population than the USSR at one point. But even when the USSR did outnumber them it was never to an insane degree where the USSR could win just by suicidal zerg rushes. That isn't true, but it is a lie that persists.

>>508464208
>Jesus commands his followers to obey their earthly masters you stupid bell end.
Because I don't think he ever did. In fact, Jesus himself was an enemy of the state, and was crucified by the state. Jesus simply said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" but never specified what Caesar's is. He was speaking rhetorically. The answer is nothing at all.

Romans 13 DOES say you must dickride the state, but this is a retcon that was added by Paul long after Jesus' death and it contradicts the words and deeds of Jesus himself. It is also illogical, given that atheist (or otherwise anti-Christian) regimes can, do, and have come about. Some exist in the world today right now in the present time.

Monarchy is correct. We can all agree on this. God decides that one man (or occasionally woman) will have absolute power, including the power of life and death, over the population of a given country. The religious establishment blesses the monarch's right to rule and, therefore, the divine right of kings is born.
But is Reza Pahlavi the rightful king (Shah = King) or Iran, or is there another claimant, like a descendent of Xerxes?
Will the new Shah, whoever he is, continue the practice of cutting off the noses of people critical of his rule? Remember, defying your government is not only disloyal, and not only a crime, but is also a sin against God Himself, and he will send you to hell for criticizing or disobeying the people He appointed to rule your life.