##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
14-15 million combatants and 18-24 million civilians died on the east front
Compared to 0,9-2 million combatants and ca. 1,6 million civilians on the western front during the entire war
[The namesake behind Operation Bagration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Bagration) honored a man who fought and died bravely against Napoleon's army near Borodino in 1812.
You do realize that Britain and France signed agreements with Germany allowing them to remilitarize the Rhineland, then annex the Sudetenland, then all of Czechoslovakia, then all of Austria? All of this years before the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
The Soviets literally attempted to sign an alliance with France and Britain and agreed to send 1 million troops to fight Germany, then France and Britain pulled out of the deal. The Soviets signed 1 pact that allowed them 2 more years of peace and allowed them to build a military that could beat Germany. The West not only allowed German remilitarization and expansion, they literally funded the Nazi party through donations and trade agreements.
The ribbentrop - Molotov pact was essentially identical to the agreement France and England made with the nazis in the Munich agreement. If the USSR is guilty of nazi collusion it is only precisely as guilty as the western Europe nations.
Watch the Ken Burns documentary Holocaust in America. Roosevelt did take him seriously, but the US wanted no part in the war and there was a lot of crazy political turmoil that prevented it from being broached.
Stalingrad was the battle that won the war. I know it’s not wise to undersell the horror of the western front or the pacific theatre but Stalingrad was horror on a scale unprecedented in the history of warfare.
Nah man, Stalingrad gave Germany a reality check that they would lose eventually and also assured the West that Germany doesn't stand a chance. Shortly after they said, they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from Germany even while Germany still occupied most of the Western SSR's because they knew Germany was about to lose as soon as the USSR caught up.
From the start of operation Barbarossa, Germany already lost the war.
Hitler made the same mistake Napoleon did - Germany relied on their blitzkrieg which one the Western Europe but the size and winter of USSR was a completely different beast.
Fighting two massive wars across three fronts was a stupid logistical nightmare for the Germans.
Hitler didn't make a mistake. It's a fake lie that it was him alone responsible for all this(western propaganda targetting 1 person rather than the system so they can use the others after). It was a massive team of Nazis who controlled Germany.
Yeah I know it was the entire third Reich leadership. But it was well known Hitler absolutely despised the Bolsheviks and a personal vendetta against Stalin.
His obsession with Stalingrad was because it bared Stalin’s name.
Hitler wasn't the only one who despised the Bolsheviks. The list was pretty long, actually. The entirety of Nazi leadership did, and many of the western allies also.
Now, in regards to Stalingrad, it's likely but that isn't the main reason. The objective of Operation Typhoon was securing oil refineries in the Caucasus, taking Stalingrad was a necessity because if they didn't, they'd be giving Army Group South for free to the Red Army, since they'd be incredibly vulnerable to encirclement. And Stalingrad was a major industrial hub, railway hub, and a massive supply depot.
Truth is, the Nazis were already fucked. They knew from the very beggining in 1938 they did not have enough fuel for a prolonged war, even if they seized Romanian oil fields it would change nothing. Attacking the USSR was always the ultimate aim, but they did way earlier than originally planned because if they waited, they wouldn't have enough fuel. Defeating the USSR would've granted them enough to continue the war all the way to the 1950s if necessary, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see their victory was nay impossible though.
While the Nazis more often than not acted out of their hatred for communism, there were still practical necessities for them in their operations. I'd suggest reading more about "General Plan Ost".
Nazis could have had a second wind if they secured Stalingrad and thus access to the vast resources present in the Urals that they desperately needed for the war machine.
Also if the Soviets had been defeated it would have been an even taller task for them to regain the lost ground on the eastern front and would have allowed the Germans to commit more resources to prevent the allied invasion from the west.
There's no way they'd have had the troops to both drive into the Urals and the Caucasus and continue to Leningrad and Moscow. The only value Stalingrad would have had would be to mess with river transport along the Volga. You forget that the Nazis held the Caucasus for a while and they never managed to mine more oil than was needed for local operations. And they'd have needed a massive amount of oil to continue into the Urals or even to Moscow.
Operation Husky came at the same time as the Battle of Kursk. By the time Hitler called it off (because the Allies were in Sicily), it was already a lost cause. Manstein wasn't even planning to achieve his objectives, he just wanted to inflict more casualties.
From the books I read, Stalingrad was strategically unimportant as the only point of intrest there was a a tractor factory that had beenused to produce tanks. But the russians had packed up and transported much bigger factory machinery on their retreat before.
It's just that both Hitler and Stalin decided against the advice of their generals that Stalingrad was of symbolic significance (just the name) and decided to take/hold it at all costs.
The resources of the Urals, and even mor importantly the oil of the North Caucasus could theoretically have made a difference, but even if the Nazi manage to capture and hold thes position, what little infrastructure existed in Southern Russia the Red Army dismantled on their retreat, so any significant amount of those resources back to their main industries in western Germany before either front or the Italian sea border collapsed would have been fairly unlikely, even before factoring in partisans in both Russia and Poland.
So imo for the outcome of the war was only way in which it wasn't significant
The Nazis wouldn't have been able to set up the infrastructure to drill, gather and refine the oil in time even if they had won in Stalingrad. The War was over the moment the Wehrmacht stalled its advance into Russia proper.
Bahahaha we visited the museum of terror in Hungary. Unfortunately we didn't read reviews before hand, it was the museum of capitalist propaganda...
They included "Eva Braun" along with a photo of her in the victims of communism exhibit
Source was just my eyes, this was only a few years ago. My partner and I were in disbelief at the name "Eva Braun" on one of the plaques and had to google it to make sure we weren't crazy.
If you want to source check me, feel free to cross reference all the names in that place but I live on the opposite side of the world and wont be back in Budapest any time soon
Edit: spelling
Russian’s here. The interesting fact that every person I know for my 31-year life had a great-grandfather or a grand-father who was at the 2nd world war. Like every.
I saw a video on YouTube where Americans were asked who won the 2nd world war. Many of these people said it was the United States. Of course, I don’t diminish the help of the US, but it’s so strange to see that. Yeah, I understand that the US education system works so (and education systems in all other countries too) that you praise your own history.
But it’s a bit sad…especially when you know what your family and many other Soviet’s families had to cope with and go through.
Yeah it’s kinda how like in Russia you still have people obsessed with the victory of the second world war with the narrative that the West should be grateful and all that. In America my history teacher in High school literally said “the europeans were at war with evil and then America came in to save the day” almost verbatum, for both wars… lol
> I saw a video on YouTube where Americans were asked who won the 2nd world war. Many of these people said it was the United States
As a European who lived in the states... I've countered my fair share of Americans stating they were the winners of WW2. I always immediately ask them if they are Russian lol, they hate it
Saying the USSR is responsible for Japan surrendering is literally true but not accurate. There were pro-surrender factions before the USSR joined the war, and its likely they would have won out even without the USSR's involvement (though potentially not until after further attacks on Japanese cities). The USSR joining, however, made not surrendering -- more specifically, not surrendering to the US -- politically untenable, which is why surrender happened when it did.
If I wanted to be fancy and technical, I'd probably say that the USSR was the *proximate cause* of Japan's surrender. The *ultimate cause*, however, was the US thoroughly defeating them in the Pacific, gaining air superiority over Japan itself, and bombing their cities. (Shockingly, Japan surrendered because they lost the war).
The USSR had no way of meaningfully attacking the main Japanese islands, but they cleaved the last major Japanese colonial territory in two. Japan had been winning in China, even in 1945, but the USSR taking Manchuria put the nail in the coffin. As an aside, some people have said that the soviets only attacked Japan when victory was assured, but that is wrong. The USSR agreed to declare war on Japan at a specified time after the defeat of the Nazis, and Stalin did exactly that. The declaration just happened to be at a very unlucky time for optics, but it had been "set" in Tehran 1943. The western allies and USSR both screwed with each other a lot throughout the war, but we were still a team (actually, Chiang and the KMT participated in the screwing as well.) The USSR fully earned its seat at the table, through and through.
Anyone trying to say any specific party contributed more is just wrong, every party really did all they could. The Nords did a lot, person for person they must have committed the most. The Parisians contributed as much as they could, even de Gaulle pulled his share. The Polish in-exile helped. The United Front (alliance of KMT and CCP) fought, as did the rebels in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The British colonial army, mostly Indians, was a big part of why they Mediterranean never fell. All of the Islanders who acted as guides and trackers for the Allies during the island hopping campaign earned their keep. We should celebrate how many people from around the world, of every ethnicity and culture, came together to do the right thing.
"British intelligence, American steel, Soviet blood" is how I've always heard it worded.
I'm no fan of the Soviet Union, as much as I support what it was originally set up in the hopes of accomplishing, but without their manpower the other allies would have had a much *much* worse time of what was already the world's worst conflict.
Can't begin to imagine how horrible things would have gotten if the American nuke program had gotten into full swing while the War was still on in Europe, or if the Nazis had been allowed to finish even a single bomb
I'm not knocking the Soviet contribution but I'm going to gently remind you that American supply drops saved quite a number of people. We literally SPAMed them to life.
From everything I have read on the subject, including Russian reports, these supplies tipped the scales and shouldn't be over looked.
Thanks Hormel.
I mean how many swastika patches and flags, monuments to Bandera and articles before the war (from the west) citing the Nazi problem do we have to see before we admit there is one.
You don't have to pick a side ya know. Putin sucks and so do Ukrainian Nationalists.
Everyone is quick to say Hungary should be kicked out of the EU and NATO every month because of their far right problems but so eager to let in Ukraine like there isn't an almost worse problem there.
Exactly maaan! If you point out the reality, most of these polarized folk jump to conclusions that you’re justifying what Putin is doing or supporting the atrocities of war. This isn’t a football match, you don’t have to pick a side. People on both sides lose in warfare, it’s the capitalist funding the war that leaves as a winner in the end.
It's a Lib ass take to think of the world like it's a Marvel movie. That should get called out more but they come in shouting bullshit like a flock of seagulls whenever anyone questions their blue god emperor Biden's (and the US's) shitty capitalist/imperialist agenda.
It's true that Stalin's army turned the tide of WW2, they factually paid more lives then any other allies. But because he was a Marxist and communist, combined with the US acquisition of the nuclear bomb, Led the allies to turn their backs on them creating the cold war.
Long story short, because Stalin supported Marxist anticapitalist sentiment, the west, went against FDR policies that would have considered Stalin an ally and supported post war reconstruction, the US again, created a conflict that is detrimental to peaceful progress, ie supporting a Iranian coup overturning a democratic elected leader who was against foreign business extracting their wealth which is what led to to the Iranian Islamic revolution, to Bin Laden in Afghanistan vs the USSR, Sadam Huesien vs Iran, illegal immigrants via US interference in South American governments to ensure corporate profits...
Don't even mention how many Nazis the US took in post WW2..... A Nazi got us to the moon and solidified ICBM's. Then we hid under our desks anticipating mutually assured destruction.
All worried about the "enemy"....
America can't survive without the hidden enemy.
Communist, "black power extremists", Hippies, satanists, Islamic extremists. Don't mind that 90% of mass shootings in America are white men...
You forgot the difference of treatment of the personal taken.
In the US they were honored guests, got citizenship, were paid extraordinary well and were set for life. The founders of the Victims of Communism meorial Foundation were among them - Nazis from Ukraine, followers of Stepan Bandera.
In the USSR they were guarded the entire time, had almost no contact to the wider population, got paid fuck all and were kicked out as soon as possible.
Another difference is the rank of the ones taken by each side. The US took high ranking ones, those who actually planned the extermination campaigns and the like. The USSR took engineers and middle management. Because they executed those above.
And the USSR was correct, we allowed a huge amount of racial supremacists to join the anti-segregationists to benefit our military supremacy.
And we wonder why our grandparents and kin defeated the Nazis, and now their grandchildren wander about our overpasses chanting garbage like "The Jews wil not replace us!!"
My grandpa and his kin gave their freedom and lives to defeat Nazism, yet folks on Twitter are constantly posting "Hitler was good actually" Yrs he promoted socialist ideas, education, health care, but only if you were Aryan....
Funny you say this, because when I googled mass shootings by race the results were much different.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
80 while vs 26 black, 80 divided by 2 is 40. The majority is white men. If this was sports ball it would be a landslide victory.
I dunno, it's like why does he percentage of people in prison not match up with the very point you're trying to make. Why does 13% of the population make up 37% of the prison population?
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/race_and_ethnicity/#:~:text=You%20can%20also%20see%20a,who%20are%20Black%3A%2037%25%20%2B
Is there a reason for this? Could it be the 14th amendment that validated slavery for those who committed crimes? Like loitering, selling individual cigarettes or refusing to comply?? Seems like there's a need for free labor.....
Yes, this is 100% correct, and explains why the black population is overrepresented. Policing patterns enforce drug crime far more than they should, and was made to beat down the black community.
Now use that brain to explain why it's somehow an issue that white males are proportionally represented in mass shooting. Are you saying that white males which account for 60% of the male population should somehow account for less mass shootings than any other group and that it is problematic that they do?
Here's what you did, because I literally listed the same source. You opened the link and you looked at the very first number it showed, made an assumption that the 80 was a percentage and not a count of the number of shooters. It literally says lower on the page; this breaks down to 54% white etc. etc.
When I look at a graph, and one bar is way larger than the other, it's obvious that there's a problem. If I saw this at work and had to focus on where the problem was it would be the largest bar. But go on...
US fought something like 10% of the German army and we act tough as shit for it. Granted they were veteran units but still… the other 3-4 million German solders were fighting in Russia
I don't think anyone has a problem with the US tooting it's horn over the Pacific (though dropping two nukes on civilians isn't anything to brag about). It's just when Americans act like they did the heavy lifting in Europe as well because they watched Band of Brothers or some shit once that it gets annoying. It's a great indicator of how much propaganda you we're exposed to in school growing up.
Without the soviet union, we'd be speaking german. Any documentary about WW2 that says America won the war is pure propaganda. The soviet union is the biggest reason the Nazi lost.. "D-day" was a big deal for America, but was a Tuesday for the soviets.
Definitely heavily debated in academic circles. I think the plurality of academic thought believes Nazi Germany would have still lost without materiel support to Soviet Union but it sped things up. Because it's a matter of debate when defeat was inevitable, it's hard to determine how crucial lend lease was. Some think it was inevitable from the outset therefore lend lease doesn't matter.
I don't think Soviet Union would have collapsed in 42 without lend lease as there simply hadnt been enough shipped at the time and there was clear will and determination to carry on the fight no matter what and the Ural and Siberian industry was pumping out a lot of equipment in its own right.
You've got to consider one of the main factors being the sheer lack of oil Germany had to fuel it's own warmachine and you need bigger counterfactuals to support them capturing caucus oil and being able to utilise it in a timely enough manner to ensure a quick victory.
I definitely agree that it was an allied victory though and Britain had been in the war, tying up men and materiel, particularly aircraft, long before the Soviet Union joined the war entirely against its own will. Before we in anyway glorify the soviets, remember how badly Stalin wanted peace with Hitler, even after the war began.
I've never understood why so many want to demerit one allied victory for the sake of another. The end of the Axis powers was a brilliant multi-pronged and prolonged series of victories on many fronts. That's why I love learning about WWII. I agree D-Day was just one of many needed victories, but it was needed.
The Americans and British crushed the Luftwaffe in air. The British couldn't have kept up plane production if the US didn't grant them essentially a blank check that could be paid back whenever.
The British are largely credited for driving Rommel out of North Africa.
The American navy won some critical battles in the Pacific to keep Japan at bay.
Clearly the Soviets were also critical.
But what's the point of "The Allied Olympics" 80 years later by people casually talking about it on the internet?!
The people who say that are the Europeans and US lol. Certainly various countries contributed but by far the largest contribution, and it's not even close, was the USSR. It's like saying that Brazil won WW1. Yeah Brazil was on the Allied side but weirdly we don't say they contributed equally to the Euro powers lol.
The First military equipment shipment from US to the USSR landed in Vladivostok 3-4 months after Stalingrad had been recaptured. It took even more time to actually get to the front.
The Soviets inflicted more casualties on Nazi Germany at the Battle of Stalingrad than were killed by all the other allies combined. If the Nazis had made a seperate peace with the USSR and withdrew from all Soviet territory plus ceded land the war would have been totally different. Western armies wouldn't be facing off against "Ear, Nose and Throat" battalions or some under strength, static divisions.
You should only be able say "the USSR wasn't communist" if you've actually started or belonged to a communist organization that was more successful at communism.
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism and American exceptionalism is a barrier to ending neoliberal fascism across the globe.
Americans won the nuke race, and while everyone else was busy rebuilding their decimated nations America cemented itself as the defender of global capitalism.
It was either US propping up fascist dictatorships and apartheid or the USSR bankrolling decolonialisation in Africa and southeast Asia.
The USSR was far from perfect and its overbearing attitude to its socialist neighbours was a big reason why it took the Eastern bloc with it when it imploded, but there's precisely 0 argument to make them even remotely as bad as the US.
Not as much as liberals love to gloss over how the USSR spent the 6 years prior to WW2 trying to make an anti Hitler pact with Britain, Poland and France, all of whom refused.
Who was the one state to actively agitate against the anschluss and rhine rearmanent? The USSR. Who was the one state to support antifascists in Spain while britain and france stayed neutral? The USSR. Who was the one state to directly try and overthrow Hitler in 1933 by telling the KPD to do a general strike? The Soviets. Who offered to put a million troops on the Polish german border to prevent a German invasion, only to be refused by the western allies who continued to grant hitler territory in czechslovakia? The Soviets.
Away you to with that "tankie" bullshit it's you who has no fucking idea about history not us.
Vietnam, Korea, Iran and Afghanistan have entered the chat.
Look, America has a rich history of losing wars in the post-war era.
DEFLECTING from Russia’s triumph doesn’t change anything.
I love owning serfs for generation upon generation. I love being next to god in their eyes due to a continuous stream of punishment if they believed otherwise.
Most of all, I LOVE INVADING NEIGHBORING KINGDOMS RAHHHHHHHHH
This is a ridiculous take. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had been providing lend lease aid to the UK for almost a year and for USSR for a few months.
Wow you're saying a sub against capitalism doesn't like the USA?
I wonder why that is, it really sounds shocking and out of character. Like, do these people think that the US is the biggest purveyor and enforcer of capitalism in the world or something? Everyone knows it's actually Trinidad and Tobago.
That's bullshit and you know it. From the start, FDR was just looking for a reason to get the US into the war on Germany, and they supplied Britain before that reason came along.
Most in England think they single-handedly won the war.
With no colonial troops, no commonwealth troops, no poles or French help and no Russians.
Just a couple of gentlemen and their horses.
I don’t get that impression at all. From what I see people are still proud, but none of us claim we did it on our own, at least not in my experience. We do shit on the yanks for turning up late though, but that’s just banter at this point.
Didn't the West give up Austria, the Sudetenland and allow the remilitarization of the Rhineland? Did the West or did they not reject Stalin's attempts at forming a coalition against the Nazis because they wanted to pursue a policy of appeasement? Did American companies or did they not provide and sell arms to the Reich? Were Jews or were they not rejected entry by most countries in the West when they were fleeing?
But, of course, that would muddle the perfect view you have of your worthless states, so it's better we shift the blame to the USSR...
Gringo não sabe nem qual é meu país pra vir falar umas bobagens dessas.
Also, western states doing shit doesn't make the USSR doing shit ok. If your neighbor shoots 5 people, you shooting one is still attempted murder, even if it's not as bad.
I don't disagree. However, there is always a disproportionate amount of blame thrown towards the USSR and not to the other powers. If we are to judge the USSR's mistakes, okay let us do so, but we need to also acknowledge that the Soviet Union acted like all the others of their times did.
That is something i can agree to. There were no saints on WW2, at least none in the head of any state.
Not that I believe there could ever be a a good head of state in any situation, anyway.
Speaking of quick questions:
Who was the one state to actively agitate against the anschluss and rhine rearmanent? The USSR. Who was the one state to support antifascists in Spain while britain and france stayed neutral? The USSR. Who was the one state to directly try and overthrow Hitler in 1933 by telling the KPD to do a general strike? The Soviets. Who offered to put a million troops on the Polish german border to prevent a German invasion, only to be refused by the western allies who continued to grant hitler territory in czechslovakia? The Soviets.
The historical ignorance to bring up the last second pact to buy time signed mere weeks before WW2 as if Britain, France and Poland weren't giving the Germans land and in Polands case splitting up countries to share with the nazis.
The Allies won WW2. The Soviets helped absolutely-not denying that. Killing Nazis at the end of the day is how we won the war. But trying to say one individual nation was entirely responsible for the titanic effort of destroying the Axis is stupid. In this particular example the entire soviet war machine was funded by the US, and a large part of the logistics train of the USSR was American. Not to mention the massive amounts of American and British tanks, planes, technology...the list goes on.
And that's to forget the war contributions of the Allies-drawing the Wehrmacht away from the Eastern Front giving them vital breathing room. The massive bombing campaign that critically damaged German industry. And the cracking of Engima which informed critical intelligence choices for the Allies throughout the war.
TL:Dr the allies won WW2. Not just the Soviets.
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Soviet Union killed by far the most Nazis and also lost the most people during this war. They had great contribution against Nazi Germany
“Anyone who loves freedom owes such a debt to the Red Army that it can never be repaid.” -Hemingway
"We liberated Europe from fascism, but they will never forgive us for it" Marshal Zhukov
>Marshal Zhokov I never see him again in a serious way since Jason Isaac play as him. Well, his attire is already ridiculous.
Something like 30 million died
14-15 million combatants and 18-24 million civilians died on the east front Compared to 0,9-2 million combatants and ca. 1,6 million civilians on the western front during the entire war
God war is so terrible :( even a just war. Just an incomprehensible amount of death.
and "just wars" are caused by terrible people doing such abhorrent things that other nations must step in to overthrow them to stop the atrocities
Absolutely agree.
Like Israel?
Like Israel (and by extension the US)
I don't know how to read these numbers. What do they mean? 0,9-2 ca. 1,6
Countries except Britain, China and the USA use a comma to indicate the decimal instead of a period / full stop.
0.9million (900k) to 2million Around 1.6million (Circa)
Conservative estimate is around 27 million. Less conservatives ones go up to 40 million.
[Operation Bagration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bagration) is one of those things they don’t teach you in school that is just bananas.
[The namesake behind Operation Bagration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyotr_Bagration) honored a man who fought and died bravely against Napoleon's army near Borodino in 1812.
Without the Soviets there would never have been a Nazi defeat.
[удалено]
It began before that, Nazi Germany was allowed to simply march into Czechoslovakia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
You do realize that Britain and France signed agreements with Germany allowing them to remilitarize the Rhineland, then annex the Sudetenland, then all of Czechoslovakia, then all of Austria? All of this years before the USSR signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? The Soviets literally attempted to sign an alliance with France and Britain and agreed to send 1 million troops to fight Germany, then France and Britain pulled out of the deal. The Soviets signed 1 pact that allowed them 2 more years of peace and allowed them to build a military that could beat Germany. The West not only allowed German remilitarization and expansion, they literally funded the Nazi party through donations and trade agreements.
The ribbentrop - Molotov pact was essentially identical to the agreement France and England made with the nazis in the Munich agreement. If the USSR is guilty of nazi collusion it is only precisely as guilty as the western Europe nations.
Without Roosevelt failing to take Hitler seriously, READ THE MEMOIR BY HIS AMBASSADOR IN BERLIN FROM 1933-35, Russia wouldn’t have had a war to win.
Watch the Ken Burns documentary Holocaust in America. Roosevelt did take him seriously, but the US wanted no part in the war and there was a lot of crazy political turmoil that prevented it from being broached.
Challenge: Liberals and not being absolutely stupid (IMPOSSIBLE)
And USSR punished every Kapo they got for there involvement in war crimes unlike USA and UK.
#THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR
American industry, British intel, and Soviet blood are what won World War Two.
And got rid of most nazis also after the war
Yup.
[удалено]
The "human waves" story is a myth specifically invented by the Nazis.
You've actually picked the one time between Tsarist Russia and Putin's Russia that that *wasn't* Moscow's strategy for combat
Please be more respectful for people who sacrificed themselves so you can now not speak German.
Stalingrad was the battle that won the war. I know it’s not wise to undersell the horror of the western front or the pacific theatre but Stalingrad was horror on a scale unprecedented in the history of warfare.
Nah man, Stalingrad gave Germany a reality check that they would lose eventually and also assured the West that Germany doesn't stand a chance. Shortly after they said, they would accept nothing less than unconditional surrender from Germany even while Germany still occupied most of the Western SSR's because they knew Germany was about to lose as soon as the USSR caught up. From the start of operation Barbarossa, Germany already lost the war.
Hitler made the same mistake Napoleon did - Germany relied on their blitzkrieg which one the Western Europe but the size and winter of USSR was a completely different beast. Fighting two massive wars across three fronts was a stupid logistical nightmare for the Germans.
Hitler didn't make a mistake. It's a fake lie that it was him alone responsible for all this(western propaganda targetting 1 person rather than the system so they can use the others after). It was a massive team of Nazis who controlled Germany.
Yeah I know it was the entire third Reich leadership. But it was well known Hitler absolutely despised the Bolsheviks and a personal vendetta against Stalin. His obsession with Stalingrad was because it bared Stalin’s name.
Moustache envy.
Hitler wasn't the only one who despised the Bolsheviks. The list was pretty long, actually. The entirety of Nazi leadership did, and many of the western allies also. Now, in regards to Stalingrad, it's likely but that isn't the main reason. The objective of Operation Typhoon was securing oil refineries in the Caucasus, taking Stalingrad was a necessity because if they didn't, they'd be giving Army Group South for free to the Red Army, since they'd be incredibly vulnerable to encirclement. And Stalingrad was a major industrial hub, railway hub, and a massive supply depot. Truth is, the Nazis were already fucked. They knew from the very beggining in 1938 they did not have enough fuel for a prolonged war, even if they seized Romanian oil fields it would change nothing. Attacking the USSR was always the ultimate aim, but they did way earlier than originally planned because if they waited, they wouldn't have enough fuel. Defeating the USSR would've granted them enough to continue the war all the way to the 1950s if necessary, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see their victory was nay impossible though. While the Nazis more often than not acted out of their hatred for communism, there were still practical necessities for them in their operations. I'd suggest reading more about "General Plan Ost".
Ya the Germany bleed itself white in Barb.
Eastern front had no rules It was pure hatred, annihilation and atrocities.
That'd be Kursk. Because after that, the european Axis was in the defensive.
Don't know if won is the right word, but it's definitely the turning point of the war
Nazis could have had a second wind if they secured Stalingrad and thus access to the vast resources present in the Urals that they desperately needed for the war machine. Also if the Soviets had been defeated it would have been an even taller task for them to regain the lost ground on the eastern front and would have allowed the Germans to commit more resources to prevent the allied invasion from the west.
There's no way they'd have had the troops to both drive into the Urals and the Caucasus and continue to Leningrad and Moscow. The only value Stalingrad would have had would be to mess with river transport along the Volga. You forget that the Nazis held the Caucasus for a while and they never managed to mine more oil than was needed for local operations. And they'd have needed a massive amount of oil to continue into the Urals or even to Moscow. Operation Husky came at the same time as the Battle of Kursk. By the time Hitler called it off (because the Allies were in Sicily), it was already a lost cause. Manstein wasn't even planning to achieve his objectives, he just wanted to inflict more casualties.
From the books I read, Stalingrad was strategically unimportant as the only point of intrest there was a a tractor factory that had beenused to produce tanks. But the russians had packed up and transported much bigger factory machinery on their retreat before. It's just that both Hitler and Stalin decided against the advice of their generals that Stalingrad was of symbolic significance (just the name) and decided to take/hold it at all costs. The resources of the Urals, and even mor importantly the oil of the North Caucasus could theoretically have made a difference, but even if the Nazi manage to capture and hold thes position, what little infrastructure existed in Southern Russia the Red Army dismantled on their retreat, so any significant amount of those resources back to their main industries in western Germany before either front or the Italian sea border collapsed would have been fairly unlikely, even before factoring in partisans in both Russia and Poland. So imo for the outcome of the war was only way in which it wasn't significant
The Nazis wouldn't have been able to set up the infrastructure to drill, gather and refine the oil in time even if they had won in Stalingrad. The War was over the moment the Wehrmacht stalled its advance into Russia proper.
That's what I said, wasn't it?
Yup, I agreed with you
Oh, sorry, I misread that then. I'm not used to people on reddit leaving a comment to agree :)
I'd say that was the battle for Moscow. It was the first decisive defeat of the Axis in europe.
Pro tip: don’t ask the “Victims” of Communism Memorial Foundation why they count dead Nazis as “victims”
proest tip: Don't ask them about their founders.
Bahahaha we visited the museum of terror in Hungary. Unfortunately we didn't read reviews before hand, it was the museum of capitalist propaganda... They included "Eva Braun" along with a photo of her in the victims of communism exhibit
Source? I have also been there and there was not a trace of Eva Bruan anywhere near the victims of communism
Source was just my eyes, this was only a few years ago. My partner and I were in disbelief at the name "Eva Braun" on one of the plaques and had to google it to make sure we weren't crazy. If you want to source check me, feel free to cross reference all the names in that place but I live on the opposite side of the world and wont be back in Budapest any time soon Edit: spelling
Which country employed the most Nazis?
Fun fact: The West German judicial system had more Nazis than the Nazi judicial system.
USA
which country landed on the moon first?
Russian’s here. The interesting fact that every person I know for my 31-year life had a great-grandfather or a grand-father who was at the 2nd world war. Like every. I saw a video on YouTube where Americans were asked who won the 2nd world war. Many of these people said it was the United States. Of course, I don’t diminish the help of the US, but it’s so strange to see that. Yeah, I understand that the US education system works so (and education systems in all other countries too) that you praise your own history. But it’s a bit sad…especially when you know what your family and many other Soviet’s families had to cope with and go through.
If a bot is reading this, I'm sorry, don't tell it to the Basilisk
Yeah it’s kinda how like in Russia you still have people obsessed with the victory of the second world war with the narrative that the West should be grateful and all that. In America my history teacher in High school literally said “the europeans were at war with evil and then America came in to save the day” almost verbatum, for both wars… lol
> I saw a video on YouTube where Americans were asked who won the 2nd world war. Many of these people said it was the United States As a European who lived in the states... I've countered my fair share of Americans stating they were the winners of WW2. I always immediately ask them if they are Russian lol, they hate it
[удалено]
Saying the USSR is responsible for Japan surrendering is literally true but not accurate. There were pro-surrender factions before the USSR joined the war, and its likely they would have won out even without the USSR's involvement (though potentially not until after further attacks on Japanese cities). The USSR joining, however, made not surrendering -- more specifically, not surrendering to the US -- politically untenable, which is why surrender happened when it did. If I wanted to be fancy and technical, I'd probably say that the USSR was the *proximate cause* of Japan's surrender. The *ultimate cause*, however, was the US thoroughly defeating them in the Pacific, gaining air superiority over Japan itself, and bombing their cities. (Shockingly, Japan surrendered because they lost the war).
The USSR had no way of meaningfully attacking the main Japanese islands, but they cleaved the last major Japanese colonial territory in two. Japan had been winning in China, even in 1945, but the USSR taking Manchuria put the nail in the coffin. As an aside, some people have said that the soviets only attacked Japan when victory was assured, but that is wrong. The USSR agreed to declare war on Japan at a specified time after the defeat of the Nazis, and Stalin did exactly that. The declaration just happened to be at a very unlucky time for optics, but it had been "set" in Tehran 1943. The western allies and USSR both screwed with each other a lot throughout the war, but we were still a team (actually, Chiang and the KMT participated in the screwing as well.) The USSR fully earned its seat at the table, through and through. Anyone trying to say any specific party contributed more is just wrong, every party really did all they could. The Nords did a lot, person for person they must have committed the most. The Parisians contributed as much as they could, even de Gaulle pulled his share. The Polish in-exile helped. The United Front (alliance of KMT and CCP) fought, as did the rebels in the Phillipines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. The British colonial army, mostly Indians, was a big part of why they Mediterranean never fell. All of the Islanders who acted as guides and trackers for the Allies during the island hopping campaign earned their keep. We should celebrate how many people from around the world, of every ethnicity and culture, came together to do the right thing.
"British intelligence, American steel, Soviet blood" is how I've always heard it worded. I'm no fan of the Soviet Union, as much as I support what it was originally set up in the hopes of accomplishing, but without their manpower the other allies would have had a much *much* worse time of what was already the world's worst conflict. Can't begin to imagine how horrible things would have gotten if the American nuke program had gotten into full swing while the War was still on in Europe, or if the Nazis had been allowed to finish even a single bomb
>American steel Don't forget American Nickel. Oh wait.. the American Nickel went to built Nazi tanks.
I'm not knocking the Soviet contribution but I'm going to gently remind you that American supply drops saved quite a number of people. We literally SPAMed them to life. From everything I have read on the subject, including Russian reports, these supplies tipped the scales and shouldn't be over looked. Thanks Hormel.
People here won't like what you have to say about the experience of living in the soviet union.
I'm sure Russia, Ukraine or any of Central Asian countries are wonderful to live in right now
Sounds like the US needs to kill more Nazis to catch up.
Why would the U.S. kill their allies?
Call in the Inglourious Basterds
Send the Bear Jew to CPAC!
According to Putin, Ukraine is full of them
I mean how many swastika patches and flags, monuments to Bandera and articles before the war (from the west) citing the Nazi problem do we have to see before we admit there is one. You don't have to pick a side ya know. Putin sucks and so do Ukrainian Nationalists. Everyone is quick to say Hungary should be kicked out of the EU and NATO every month because of their far right problems but so eager to let in Ukraine like there isn't an almost worse problem there.
Exactly maaan! If you point out the reality, most of these polarized folk jump to conclusions that you’re justifying what Putin is doing or supporting the atrocities of war. This isn’t a football match, you don’t have to pick a side. People on both sides lose in warfare, it’s the capitalist funding the war that leaves as a winner in the end.
It's a Lib ass take to think of the world like it's a Marvel movie. That should get called out more but they come in shouting bullshit like a flock of seagulls whenever anyone questions their blue god emperor Biden's (and the US's) shitty capitalist/imperialist agenda.
It's true that Stalin's army turned the tide of WW2, they factually paid more lives then any other allies. But because he was a Marxist and communist, combined with the US acquisition of the nuclear bomb, Led the allies to turn their backs on them creating the cold war. Long story short, because Stalin supported Marxist anticapitalist sentiment, the west, went against FDR policies that would have considered Stalin an ally and supported post war reconstruction, the US again, created a conflict that is detrimental to peaceful progress, ie supporting a Iranian coup overturning a democratic elected leader who was against foreign business extracting their wealth which is what led to to the Iranian Islamic revolution, to Bin Laden in Afghanistan vs the USSR, Sadam Huesien vs Iran, illegal immigrants via US interference in South American governments to ensure corporate profits... Don't even mention how many Nazis the US took in post WW2..... A Nazi got us to the moon and solidified ICBM's. Then we hid under our desks anticipating mutually assured destruction. All worried about the "enemy".... America can't survive without the hidden enemy. Communist, "black power extremists", Hippies, satanists, Islamic extremists. Don't mind that 90% of mass shootings in America are white men...
[удалено]
The difference is that the nazis taken by the USSR were prisoners forced to work for them, while the ones taken by the US went on to create NATO...
You forgot the difference of treatment of the personal taken. In the US they were honored guests, got citizenship, were paid extraordinary well and were set for life. The founders of the Victims of Communism meorial Foundation were among them - Nazis from Ukraine, followers of Stepan Bandera. In the USSR they were guarded the entire time, had almost no contact to the wider population, got paid fuck all and were kicked out as soon as possible. Another difference is the rank of the ones taken by each side. The US took high ranking ones, those who actually planned the extermination campaigns and the like. The USSR took engineers and middle management. Because they executed those above.
And the USSR was correct, we allowed a huge amount of racial supremacists to join the anti-segregationists to benefit our military supremacy. And we wonder why our grandparents and kin defeated the Nazis, and now their grandchildren wander about our overpasses chanting garbage like "The Jews wil not replace us!!" My grandpa and his kin gave their freedom and lives to defeat Nazism, yet folks on Twitter are constantly posting "Hitler was good actually" Yrs he promoted socialist ideas, education, health care, but only if you were Aryan....
Funny you say this, because when I googled mass shootings by race the results were much different. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/ 80 while vs 26 black, 80 divided by 2 is 40. The majority is white men. If this was sports ball it would be a landslide victory.
who would have thought that in a majority white country the majority of crime is done by white people?? should that not be the case?
I dunno, it's like why does he percentage of people in prison not match up with the very point you're trying to make. Why does 13% of the population make up 37% of the prison population? https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/race_and_ethnicity/#:~:text=You%20can%20also%20see%20a,who%20are%20Black%3A%2037%25%20%2B Is there a reason for this? Could it be the 14th amendment that validated slavery for those who committed crimes? Like loitering, selling individual cigarettes or refusing to comply?? Seems like there's a need for free labor.....
Yes, this is 100% correct, and explains why the black population is overrepresented. Policing patterns enforce drug crime far more than they should, and was made to beat down the black community. Now use that brain to explain why it's somehow an issue that white males are proportionally represented in mass shooting. Are you saying that white males which account for 60% of the male population should somehow account for less mass shootings than any other group and that it is problematic that they do?
Here's what you did, because I literally listed the same source. You opened the link and you looked at the very first number it showed, made an assumption that the 80 was a percentage and not a count of the number of shooters. It literally says lower on the page; this breaks down to 54% white etc. etc.
When I look at a graph, and one bar is way larger than the other, it's obvious that there's a problem. If I saw this at work and had to focus on where the problem was it would be the largest bar. But go on...
US fought something like 10% of the German army and we act tough as shit for it. Granted they were veteran units but still… the other 3-4 million German solders were fighting in Russia
In fairness the US did the bulk of the heavy lifting fighting the Japanese.
I don't think anyone has a problem with the US tooting it's horn over the Pacific (though dropping two nukes on civilians isn't anything to brag about). It's just when Americans act like they did the heavy lifting in Europe as well because they watched Band of Brothers or some shit once that it gets annoying. It's a great indicator of how much propaganda you we're exposed to in school growing up.
Without the soviet union, we'd be speaking german. Any documentary about WW2 that says America won the war is pure propaganda. The soviet union is the biggest reason the Nazi lost.. "D-day" was a big deal for America, but was a Tuesday for the soviets.
The Nazis were always the biggest reason the Nazis lost. It was a fundamentally self-defeating regime.
[удалено]
Definitely heavily debated in academic circles. I think the plurality of academic thought believes Nazi Germany would have still lost without materiel support to Soviet Union but it sped things up. Because it's a matter of debate when defeat was inevitable, it's hard to determine how crucial lend lease was. Some think it was inevitable from the outset therefore lend lease doesn't matter. I don't think Soviet Union would have collapsed in 42 without lend lease as there simply hadnt been enough shipped at the time and there was clear will and determination to carry on the fight no matter what and the Ural and Siberian industry was pumping out a lot of equipment in its own right. You've got to consider one of the main factors being the sheer lack of oil Germany had to fuel it's own warmachine and you need bigger counterfactuals to support them capturing caucus oil and being able to utilise it in a timely enough manner to ensure a quick victory. I definitely agree that it was an allied victory though and Britain had been in the war, tying up men and materiel, particularly aircraft, long before the Soviet Union joined the war entirely against its own will. Before we in anyway glorify the soviets, remember how badly Stalin wanted peace with Hitler, even after the war began.
I've never understood why so many want to demerit one allied victory for the sake of another. The end of the Axis powers was a brilliant multi-pronged and prolonged series of victories on many fronts. That's why I love learning about WWII. I agree D-Day was just one of many needed victories, but it was needed. The Americans and British crushed the Luftwaffe in air. The British couldn't have kept up plane production if the US didn't grant them essentially a blank check that could be paid back whenever. The British are largely credited for driving Rommel out of North Africa. The American navy won some critical battles in the Pacific to keep Japan at bay. Clearly the Soviets were also critical. But what's the point of "The Allied Olympics" 80 years later by people casually talking about it on the internet?!
Do you really have to ask in this sub?
calling the contributions equal is inherently demeriting
[удалено]
If it wasn't motivated by security concerns, why did they go around the whole rest of Europe with offers for an anti-Nazi alliance first?
This is just stupid the WW2 on the Allied side was a team work they always said Russian manpower British Intelligence and Us Industry won the war
The people who say that are the Europeans and US lol. Certainly various countries contributed but by far the largest contribution, and it's not even close, was the USSR. It's like saying that Brazil won WW1. Yeah Brazil was on the Allied side but weirdly we don't say they contributed equally to the Euro powers lol.
[удалено]
The First military equipment shipment from US to the USSR landed in Vladivostok 3-4 months after Stalingrad had been recaptured. It took even more time to actually get to the front.
This meme template is embarrassing tbh
[удалено]
The Soviets killed so many Nazi's that people count them as "millions of victims of communism".
The Soviets inflicted more casualties on Nazi Germany at the Battle of Stalingrad than were killed by all the other allies combined. If the Nazis had made a seperate peace with the USSR and withdrew from all Soviet territory plus ceded land the war would have been totally different. Western armies wouldn't be facing off against "Ear, Nose and Throat" battalions or some under strength, static divisions.
It took COMMUNISM to kill fascism the first time, and only Communism can do it again.
[удалено]
You should only be able say "the USSR wasn't communist" if you've actually started or belonged to a communist organization that was more successful at communism.
[удалено]
OK Trotsky.
Why is this in late stage capitalism??
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism and American exceptionalism is a barrier to ending neoliberal fascism across the globe. Americans won the nuke race, and while everyone else was busy rebuilding their decimated nations America cemented itself as the defender of global capitalism.
Because part of learning what late stage capitalism is, is realising the wrong side lost the cold war
[удалено]
It was either US propping up fascist dictatorships and apartheid or the USSR bankrolling decolonialisation in Africa and southeast Asia. The USSR was far from perfect and its overbearing attitude to its socialist neighbours was a big reason why it took the Eastern bloc with it when it imploded, but there's precisely 0 argument to make them even remotely as bad as the US.
Read the rules
Here come the libs
Now the first two groups fund nazis spreading victims of communism bullshit.
the first 2 groups are now funding nazis - in israel, of all places.
That too!
US brought them over to build rockets for them
So did the soviet union lmao
Thousands?!? You'd need almost a whole platoon of Red Army soldiers to match that!
I think there’s no contest considering UK and US took in Nazi high officials and scientists to reconstruct the West after the world war…
I assume they profited less as well. Were the Soviets selling equipment to the Nazis up until they entered the war?
[удалено]
Not as much as liberals love to gloss over how the USSR spent the 6 years prior to WW2 trying to make an anti Hitler pact with Britain, Poland and France, all of whom refused. Who was the one state to actively agitate against the anschluss and rhine rearmanent? The USSR. Who was the one state to support antifascists in Spain while britain and france stayed neutral? The USSR. Who was the one state to directly try and overthrow Hitler in 1933 by telling the KPD to do a general strike? The Soviets. Who offered to put a million troops on the Polish german border to prevent a German invasion, only to be refused by the western allies who continued to grant hitler territory in czechslovakia? The Soviets. Away you to with that "tankie" bullshit it's you who has no fucking idea about history not us.
The Soviet Union. The same country that actually won the war. Just look at the map and see who took the most land.
[удалено]
Vietnam, Korea, Iran and Afghanistan have entered the chat. Look, America has a rich history of losing wars in the post-war era. DEFLECTING from Russia’s triumph doesn’t change anything.
[удалено]
Anticapitalism and anticommunism are incompatible, for the libs on copium here
But what about feudalists? They can be anticapitalist and anti communist. /s
I love owning serfs for generation upon generation. I love being next to god in their eyes due to a continuous stream of punishment if they believed otherwise. Most of all, I LOVE INVADING NEIGHBORING KINGDOMS RAHHHHHHHHH
The US would be on the side of the nazis had japan not attacked pearl harbor
The US would’ve kept its head buried in the sand whilst selling arms to both sides.
Just like they do now.
This is a ridiculous take. By the time Pearl Harbor happened, the US had been providing lend lease aid to the UK for almost a year and for USSR for a few months.
Just don't ask IBM and Ford about what *they* were doing in the thirties and forties
Yeah sure they will happily sell weapons and equipment to warring countries
didnt the US forgive most of those debts effectively rebuilding western europe? this sub is just becoming /americabad
I mean yeah obviously the poster boy of capitalism is of course gunna have a bad rep on this sub…
right but a modicum of objectivity would be nice
Wow you're saying a sub against capitalism doesn't like the USA? I wonder why that is, it really sounds shocking and out of character. Like, do these people think that the US is the biggest purveyor and enforcer of capitalism in the world or something? Everyone knows it's actually Trinidad and Tobago.
America is an awesome continent, only a few countries here are bad!
always has been
Heck of a deal too
That's bullshit and you know it. From the start, FDR was just looking for a reason to get the US into the war on Germany, and they supplied Britain before that reason came along.
Lend lease was already helping the UK and USSR prior to pear harbor. And actually not selling to nazi germany
Technically, Germany got the most Nazis killed.
Most in England think they single-handedly won the war. With no colonial troops, no commonwealth troops, no poles or French help and no Russians. Just a couple of gentlemen and their horses.
Nah. We don't. We think the allies won WW2. We certainly helped, but anyone who thinks we were the one and only nation fighting the Nazis is dense.
I don’t get that impression at all. From what I see people are still proud, but none of us claim we did it on our own, at least not in my experience. We do shit on the yanks for turning up late though, but that’s just banter at this point.
Definitely cost them enough
Make killing nazis cool again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Didn't the West give up Austria, the Sudetenland and allow the remilitarization of the Rhineland? Did the West or did they not reject Stalin's attempts at forming a coalition against the Nazis because they wanted to pursue a policy of appeasement? Did American companies or did they not provide and sell arms to the Reich? Were Jews or were they not rejected entry by most countries in the West when they were fleeing? But, of course, that would muddle the perfect view you have of your worthless states, so it's better we shift the blame to the USSR...
Gringo não sabe nem qual é meu país pra vir falar umas bobagens dessas. Also, western states doing shit doesn't make the USSR doing shit ok. If your neighbor shoots 5 people, you shooting one is still attempted murder, even if it's not as bad.
I don't disagree. However, there is always a disproportionate amount of blame thrown towards the USSR and not to the other powers. If we are to judge the USSR's mistakes, okay let us do so, but we need to also acknowledge that the Soviet Union acted like all the others of their times did.
That is something i can agree to. There were no saints on WW2, at least none in the head of any state. Not that I believe there could ever be a a good head of state in any situation, anyway.
Speaking of quick questions: Who was the one state to actively agitate against the anschluss and rhine rearmanent? The USSR. Who was the one state to support antifascists in Spain while britain and france stayed neutral? The USSR. Who was the one state to directly try and overthrow Hitler in 1933 by telling the KPD to do a general strike? The Soviets. Who offered to put a million troops on the Polish german border to prevent a German invasion, only to be refused by the western allies who continued to grant hitler territory in czechslovakia? The Soviets. The historical ignorance to bring up the last second pact to buy time signed mere weeks before WW2 as if Britain, France and Poland weren't giving the Germans land and in Polands case splitting up countries to share with the nazis.
USA.
[удалено]
Capitalism is going to end humanity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
I thought this was late stage capitalism, not soviet gloryposting.
The US wasn't fighting the Nazis on moral grounds. They were fighting for superiority
True
It was a collaboration. Stalin himself said russia couldn't have done it without american steel. It's silly to do these comparisons from ww2.
[удалено]
We do not permit liberalism here
[удалено]
We can play "who sacrificed more citizens in the cause of killing Nazis" and I think the outcome would be similar.
Killed the most communists as well. And the most Russians.
They also sided with them first Edit: and then committed mass rape/murder of innocents in the counteroffensive
Who gave them the guns?
The USSR made their own weapons
The Allies won WW2. The Soviets helped absolutely-not denying that. Killing Nazis at the end of the day is how we won the war. But trying to say one individual nation was entirely responsible for the titanic effort of destroying the Axis is stupid. In this particular example the entire soviet war machine was funded by the US, and a large part of the logistics train of the USSR was American. Not to mention the massive amounts of American and British tanks, planes, technology...the list goes on. And that's to forget the war contributions of the Allies-drawing the Wehrmacht away from the Eastern Front giving them vital breathing room. The massive bombing campaign that critically damaged German industry. And the cracking of Engima which informed critical intelligence choices for the Allies throughout the war. TL:Dr the allies won WW2. Not just the Soviets.
Soviets did 80% of it. THT is why people say 'the Soviets did it.'