God, they're bending themselves backward to avoid admitting that the USSR won the war.
this post was submitted on 09 Jan 2024
80 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13505 readers
29 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
If you remove US lend lease to the USSR, USSR strength in Europe is down by 5-ish %. If you remove the USSR from US strength in Europe, oh dear.
Staline
She transitioned?!?
can you fucking imagine how intolerable right-wingers would be if that were the case
god it would be so funny
At least we'd have a little leverage with the girlboss radlibs.
Generous of you to assume they’d be consistent. The part of girlboss they care most about is boss
It's not of the same caliber, but I'm eagerly anticipating the boomer memes when the DPRK's latest Kim figurehead happens to be a woman.
Incidentally, while it is no guarantee, I have hope that such a change will be a boon to feminist causes there.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Fuck it why not?
Iosephine Stalina
load more comments
(2 replies)
Changed tide of war
in fucking 1944
Wasn’t the Soviet Union already back in Poland by 1944?
By the end of it, so an argument could be made (if you are a dipshit who thinks frontline move by magic)
But ukraine itself was already liberated by june 1944 (the western half). the eastern part was done in 1943.
I mean, it was in 1944 that for the axis it went from “not going well at all” to “run for your lives”. And I mean, one of the main contributions of the US was A-mostly dealing with Japan, B-supplying half the world (including the soviets). The troops sure were important as hell, but not their main contribution
I mean by 1944 germany was done for. It was done for by 1943, but 1944 it was so obvious, i doubt that person (with historic background!) even looked at the eastern front.
Land lease was important, and people may downplay it a bit more than they should, but war stuff is incomprehensible to me.
germany was done the moment it lost the battle of moscow imo
On grand scale - when they ~~failed~~ were stopped at stalingrad/reaching oilfields, but like it requires a lot of whatifs and blahblah. By 1943 soviets were advancing 500 km a year, and germany industry couldn't suddenly double its outputs, so war direction is fairly easy to see.
Someone drop that paper/book from the U.S. military directly saying the USSR would have won the war without us
load more comments
(1 replies)
Look I'm a professional i've played a lot of victoria 3 and when the front starts moving like that between great powers it's over, one side has either lost too many men, morale, or materiel to put up an effective defense, much less push back
load more comments
(2 replies)
I mean by 1944 germany was done for.
By June of '44, they were proper fucked.
But the US was officially in the war from '41 and was sending troops into North Africa in '42, which cut into the supply lines of German industry. It isn't impossible to see the Germans securing a peace deal before their Russian invasion went sideways, and there were certainly no small number of American Fascists who would have liked to see a DC/Berlin alliance.
Had the US entered the war on the side of the Germans, rather than the British, that definitely would have been it for the Western facing Allies. So, from an entirely Atlantic perspective, the US saved the British from Germany in the aftermath of 1940. And if all you're talking to are Angloids glued to the History Channel, I guess its fair to say America won the war for Churchill and de Gaulle. The Nazis might still be a thing (at least as far as Fransisco Franco remained a thing) well into the 1970s and 80s, had Americans not backed the English and French up.
It isn't impossible to see the Germans securing a peace deal before their Russian invasion went sideways
i don't see why the UK would ever accept a unipolar europe while the royal navy & empire were still intact. the germans had no way to threaten the island besides bomber sorties and that campaign was a resounding failure
i don't see why the UK would ever accept a unipolar europe while the royal navy & empire were still intact.
The empire was falling apart in real time as colonial revolts popped off around the globe. Ending the European conflict so they could get a lid back on the rest of the empire would have been a better long term strategy than slugging it out with Berlin for another half-decade.
the germans had no way to threaten the island besides bomber sorties and that campaign was a resounding failure
Yemen shut down the entire Red Sea with a few rocket bombs. The Germans could have choked off the UK financially if they'd been more patient and less eager to score smashing blitzkrieg victories in every campaign. At some point, the UK needs steel and fuel, and has relatively limited ways to get it without passing through territory the Germans could threaten.
By the end of the war, England was in a state of near-starvation. There's a great YouTube video of a woman who tries to make meals with English foodstock from the year 1946 to 19...90, one day for each year? The first couple meals are bleak and everyone leaves the table still hungry.
Britain's Empire was meaningless without a europe to sell the goods and resources to, the losses of all UK financiers' investments on the continent, and the reestablishment of trade on unequal terms is simply so counter to the UK ruling class interests & pride it'd take a comprehensive and devastating defeat. which it's doubtful german trade interdiction had any chance of actually forcing, and in any case they didn't have enough time for. Germans, not the UK who were the ones actually under a blockade, which is why they made the M-R pact and rushed Soviet natural resources in Barbarossa
By the end of the war everyone was starving. the UK was actually way better off compared to any participants besides americans (the whole continent)
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
B-supplying half the world (including the soviets).
This phrasing makes it sound like Russia was running entirely or even mostly on what America supplied it when that is not the case.
load more comments
(1 replies)
"I have a degree in history. The Allied [sic] would not have one [sic] without America"
did the Americans greatly contribute etc.
"That's right! Without American intervention countless Nazis would have been held accountable and wouldn't have been placed in government and intelligence positions to thwart the evil Communist menace!"
Not just that, without America and Britain where would Hitler have got the idea of racial hierarchy and imperialism? So to say the US wasn’t important in the war is STALINIST propaganda.
When you talk about propaganda, what's most damning is how simple, uncontestable facts -- like the U.S. making up a large minority of troops at Normandy -- get flipped on their head, to where many (most?) Americans think it was "mostly" U.S. troops doing the fighting and dying.
That's what you want to focus on if you're trying to talk to some lib about propaganda, not 
shit like when precisely the Allied victory was inevitable.
It was mostly American troops doing the dying at least. They had fewer vehicles, got unlucky in terms of the German positions and supposedly refused to take advice from the British and Canadian forces because the commander was a notorious anglophobe.
the commander was a notorious anglophobe.
That much is relatable, at least
load more comments
(1 replies)
I have a degree in history
change the tied of War
they dont have a degree in english
load more comments
(1 replies)
The US was (and still is) ideologically aligned with the Nazis, and only joined WW2 in the 11th hour because Japan forced them to with the attack on Pearl Harbor. To think that the US "won the war" or should be uniquely congratulated for their contributions to the war is... absurd. If anyone should be awarded that honor, it's the Soviets.
Edit: I really like this place. Yall taught me so much in the replies and it felt welcoming to learn it. This type of discourse seems so rare to find these days. Thank you comrades!
You can go way further than that. The US initially only declared war on Japan and not Germany, only to join the European Theatre later.
There are various interpretations of this, but it seems plain to me that they were hoping the Nazis would beat the Soviets and the US could decide what to do from there, but once the Soviets began to resist more effectively, the US needed to make sure that the Soviets wouldn't get control of the entirety of Germany's manufacturing capacity in the case that they won out*, so they joined in Europe to ensure the liberal coalition would control a portion of Germany.**
*Which most historians agree they would have, even without the US
**Which is indeed what happened
This was also almost the only reason the US dropped both bombs on an already-surrendering Japan, to ensure control of the negotiations and that the Soviets got as little as possible.
Killing 200,000 civilians to get a leg up on the Russkies 
load more comments
(1 replies)
I would argue that Japan didn't even force them to enter the war. America chose to enter the war to beat the soviets to the pacific theatre, so that they could prevent an unconditional surrender to the Soviets.
the US declared an embargo on japan in july 1941, when the red army was fielding losses in the hundreds of thousands in the first month of barbarossa. to make japan attack them and take their colonies. so they'd have an excuse to get to the pacific before the Soviet Union. 
cold war / new cold war mentality breaks westerners' brains so immaculately that the concept of "alliance" is just completely unimaginable to them. the 'Allies' won ww2 all the large and small allied countries contributed meaningfully (besides like the 1945-entrants, lol). everyone trying to make like one country did it alone has to purposefully ignore huge parts of the war for cold-war narrative points
The funny part: American loses were triple Brittish loses. How has no American asked, why were the American War Pig Generals willing to sacrifice 3x the number of their own men? 
"British troops" aka 50% Indian troops
There were no soviets to do the heavy lifting in the pacific theatre.
If Americans hadn't firebombed Dresden, Hitler would have won the war.
load more comments
(1 replies)
was there too.
No investigation, no right to speak. Condescension and smug attitudes are not actually a substitute for real knowledge.
Idk shit fuck about WW2 if I'm entirely honest
WW2 was Germany steamrolling western Europe and getting their shit rocked by the Soviets, who industrialized faster than any other society in history before or since. Meanwhile, Japan was attempting to build an empire in Asia and the Pacific and tried to pre-emptively destroy US capacity in the Pacific, forcing them to enter the war and forcing Germany to declare war on the US due to alliance. Japan lost badly in the Pacific and was driven out of continental Asia, and then surrendered shortly before the Soviets could invade the Japanese mainland.
The Soviets were the real heroes of ww2
load more comments
(1 replies)
Not usually big on WWII, but one thing I really enjoyed was a timelapse map of the fronts on Eurasia and north Africa: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CqGeAmVu1I . Just look at that video and tell me the Soviet Union did not do 90% of the leg work on this war, and that the war already clearly being lost by the Germans by the time of the d-day landing.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›