You're viewing a single thread.
I love this logic.
If we follow it, then nobody should have stood up to Hitler, because it would mean allying with the racist US and imperial Britain.
LMFAO this is what happens when you get "education" under a western regime. The racist US and imperial Britain were completely and utterly irrelevant to defeating Hitler. In fact, what they actually accomplished was to ensure that the horrors of capitalism would continue to this day. With the US, it would have been USSR that liberated all of Europe from both the nazis and capitalist oppression.
Don't take my word for it though. Here's what a book produced by US military has to say on the subject.
This. The Russians did all the work and the US and UK come and take the credit
Because the US and UK did nothing else during the war except lend-lease of course. The bombing of German industry, blockades of their supply lines, the Africa-campaigns, extensive intelligence operations, no all of that definitely did nothing and didn't contribute to the war effort at all.
It's likely the Allies would have won the war without the US involved, though it's estimated it would have taken much longer. Without UK involvement, it's more probable that the Germans could have achieved a victory, though perhaps not a total capitulation of the Soviets. Without a western front to guard as heavily, they would probably have taken Moscow by the end of 41 (irl they were 20 miles out). Japan would also have a much freeer reign in the pacific theatre.
It's obvious to anyone who can do basic math that what the US and UK did was a pinprick to German army and industry. You simply have to look at the numbers of troops lost and it becomes very clear who was fighting this war. After many decades of propaganda westerners convinced themselves they were relevant in it.
The Axis combined conscripted approximately 40 million men, whereas the Soviet Union conscripted approximately 34.5 million men. Without the Allies they would not have won just looking at the numbers.
The US conscripted 16 million, the British Commonwealth approximately 11 million. That's a combined 27 million, which isn't exactly insignificant compared to the USSRs 34.5 million (see https://www.statista.com/statistics/1342260/wwii-mobilization-by-country/).
The Soviets were forced to mobilize that many as they were essentially fighting an existential war at that time. They also suffered the brunt of the casualties, in no small part due to a lack of equipment.
Without the Allies, the USSR would have likely lost. Even Stalin knew and said as much. The US entry shortened the war but they certainly didn't "win the war for the rest of the Allies" or anything. But to minimize the contribution as a "pinprick" is ridiculous and not supported by historians east nor west.
Clearly the US army disagrees with you, but what do they know.
The US army says that lend-lease and the invasion of Europe shortened the war. It does not say that the Soviets would have won without the Allies being in the war. Even your source says that the lend-lease and the invasion, even if not the deciding factor, were "a great help".
Maybe read your sources a little better?
The source very clearly states that western effort shortened the war, but did not fundamentally change the dynamic of the war. Maybe work on your own reading comprehension?
No, it specifically talks about US lend-lease and the invasion of Europe. It's not talking about the entire western contribution to the war.
ok sure
LOL this guy again
Okay. Even if this is correct, then we have: If the UK and the US had not stood up to Hitler, we would have a Stalinist regime spreading across all, not half of the continent. Nice.
Also, a reminder: The Soviets first collaborated with Hitler, attacking Poland together in 1939. They intensified rather than stopped the colonial practices of the Russian Empire.
Yeah, communism spreading across the world would actually be nice. As a reminder, the Four-Power Pact was a 1933 agreement between Britain, France, Italy, and Germany.
Munich Agreement (September 1938): The British, French, and Italy agreed to concede the Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for a pledge of peace. WWII began one year later, when Germany invaded Poland.
The Pilsudski Pact (1934): The German–Polish declaration of non-aggression normalised relations and the parties agreed to forgo armed conflict for a period of 10 years. Germany invaded Poland in 1939.
German-French Non-Aggression Pact (December 1938): A treaty between Germany and France, ensuring mutual non-aggression and peaceful relations. Germany invaded France in 1940.
German-Lithuanian Non-Aggression Pact (March 1939): This ultimatum issued by Germany demanded Lithuania return the Klaipėda Region (Memel) which it lost in WWI in exchange for a non-aggression pact. Germany occupied Lithuania in 1941.
Denmark Non-Aggression Pact (May 1939): An agreement between Germany and Denmark, ensuring non-aggression and peaceful coexistence. Germany invaded Denmark in 1940.
German-Estonian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Estonia in 1941.
German-Latvian Non-Aggression Pact (June 1939): Germany occupied Latvia in 1941.
USSR Non-Aggression Pact (August 1939): Known as the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, this was a non-aggression treaty between Germany and the Soviet Union, also including secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe into spheres of influence. Germany invaded the USSR in 1941.
Feel free to continue embarrassing yourself.
Yeah, the "secret protocols dividing Eastern Europe" are a tiny, tiny detail. The UK and France decided to declare war on Germany because it was attacking independent countries. The USSR decided to join Germany in the war efforts, as long as they could. They also made programs of ethnic cleansing, mass incarceration and mass murder parallel to the Nazi ones. (They themselves admitted they were basically the same thing, claiming for years that the Katyn massacre was done by the Germans and not the Soviets). The power in the Soviet Union was concentrated in the hands of a very few people at the highest ranks of the Communist Party. Any independent self-organization, including independent workers' unions, was forbidden. Explain to me: What was so wonderful in all of that?
The UK and France decided to declare war on Germany because it was attacking independent countries.
🤣🤣🤣
The USSR decided to join Germany in the war efforts, as long as they could.
🤡
Can't wait for the next banger.
The power in the Soviet Union was concentrated in the hands of a very few people at the highest ranks of the Communist Party. Any independent self-organization, including independent workers’ unions, was forbidden. Explain to me: What was so wonderful in all of that?
Having actually grown up in USSR, this is hands down the dumbest shit I've read on this site today.
Well, I've also grown up in the former Eastern Bloc. So 1:1. Maybe you were part of the privileged group profiting from the Soviet imperialism? ;)
Also: Do you deny the Gulag, the oppression of all opposition, including any forms of self-organization, the Holodomor genocide, and the ethnic cleansing, e.g., of the Crimean Tatars?
ah yes the PriVileGed GrOup ProFiTing FroM the SovIeT ImepriaLism seems to have been majority of the population in USSR 🤡
Also: Do you deny the Gulag, the oppression of all opposition, including any forms of self-organization, the Holodomor genocide, and the ethnic cleansing, e.g., of the Crimean Tatars?
Of course I deny your fascist propaganda. Holodomor genocide narrative was literally created by fascist and you've just exposed yourself by regurgitating it.
Yes, the majority of the population. Everybody wanted to go to the USSR and the Eastern Bloc in general. That is why they built the Berlin Wall and heavily guarded all the borders with Western Europe. To stop all the migrants ;) (I prefer to trust people living at that time than the nostalgia.)
I agree that it is worse in Russia now than it was in the post-Stalin Soviet era, though.
Yes, the majority of the population. Everybody wanted to go to the USSR and the Eastern Bloc in general. That is why they built the Berlin Wall and heavily guarded all the borders with Western Europe. To stop all the migrants ;) (I prefer to trust people living at that time than the nostalgia.)
Oh look more drivel. The reason the immigration was strict wasn't because everyone wanted to flee from USSR as you fascists claim. It was because people who got their free education in USSR could leverage it go and make way more money in the west and live of the capitalist exploitation. The fact that the majority of the population of USSR voted against the dissolution in the referendum clearly shows that you're full of shit.
I agree that it is worse in Russia now than it was in the post-Stalin Soviet era, though.
Meanwhile, where it's actually worse now than during USSR times is in the Baltics where the industry is gone, and everyone who has the means to do so left.
Meanwhile, Russian economy is booming, and the World Bank just reclassified Russia as a high income country https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/world-bank-country-classifications-by-income-level-for-2024-2025
The IMF forecasts that Russian economy is set to grow faster than all the western economies https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/17/russia-forecast-to-grow-faster-than-advanced-economies-in-2024-imf.html
Literally every single thing you stated in this thread is demonstrably wrong. Gotta work on your trolling skills not to make it so obvious.
-
How many people a month were dying because of the Nazis?
I love how you ignore those lives as meaningless.
Then we might as well ask how many people a months has US led world order killed since WW2 ended.
You're the one saying we shouldn't take any actions unless they are morally blameless.
I'll be the first to say the US should end its wars. What I don't understand how not using the Dems to get rid of Trump improves the situation.
Nah that's not what I was saying at all. It's just a hamfisted straw man you're using. What I was actually saying is that not only would've USSR defeated the nazis on their own, what the west accomplished was a net negative for the world. Had US not gotten itself involved, then Europe would've almost certainly have become communist. There wouldn't have been wars in Vietnam and Korea, Afghanistan, and many other horrors the empire continues to enact, and we wouldn't be living in capitalist hell in the west today.
Sorry. I thought we were dealing with getting stuff done now.
I didn't realize you wanted to talk about alternate history.
My mistake.
No, we are not dealing with alternative history. We are dealing with the history of what the west proceeded to do after the war ended. If you're going to talk about how many people died then you have to include all the people that the west brutally massacred during the Cold War and continues to massacre today. Because your claim is that the world order that arose out of US participating in the war was a net positive. Let me know if you need me to use smaller words to help you understand this.
That's not relevant to getting things done now.
The actual history is that Stalin wanted help form the US and took it. Anything else is alternate history.
If you want to talk about getting power away from Trump, I'm interested. Otherwise, have a nice night.
Once again, you made a claim that the less people died because the US participated in the war. And I simply pointed out that the world order that formed from that resulted in far greater human suffering. Nobody is talking about any alternative histories here. We are talking about the actual history of western depravities that followed in the wake of WW2. Let me know if that's still unclear to you.
You're the one saying we should not do anything unless it is morally blameless.
I know the US war on terror is immoral. What I don't understand is why you think letting things get worse is a good idea.
cough non agression pact cough
Annnd which one of these is viewed as "good"?
None of them. But you seem kinda hellbent on specialising the one that explicitly carved up several countries that were about to be invaded a literal week before the invasions started.
Annnd which one of these is viewed as “good”?
None of them are viewed as much of anything because nobody ever brings them up. Yet if someone has the gall to claim that the Soviets fought (not even beat) the Nazis, fuckers like you come in to harp on about muh Muhluhtov-Ribbenslop pact.
I think your ignorance is rather showing here. "Appeasement" has literally become a filthy word politically because of those exact pacts. Except for Italy, which ended up an axis power in and of itself so I'm not quite sure wtf you think putting that in accomplished.
You are getting very weirdly het up about people acknowledging the fact that pact occurred. The USSR literally did change sides mid-war. This is fact. That doesn't negate their part in ending the war (there is literally a saying about british intelligence, US hardware and russian blood) but to act like they were the sole saviours of europe is just as much bullshit as the americans claiming the same
Because when other countries "stood up" to Hitler it was for moral reasons 🤡