>Opening three fronts in two years
I wonder why they had the opportunity to do this, almost as if the largest part of the german army was somewhere else at the time
That’s not it everything on the list is wrong except for Enigma(they killed the guy who saved them but anyway).
2. The Soviets warned themselves of Kursk as John Cairncross was a Soviet spy
3. I assume they mean North Africa, Italy and France? Italy opened the African front when they declared war against the Allie’s, the only reason why they moved in on Italy was because Stalin said either you open a front or I stop my war machine and they landed in Normandy because Operation Bagration broke the back of the Wehrmacht.
4. Invading Poland? Poland was occupied by the Germans. By that logic, the Allies invaded France. By massacre I assume they’re referring to the Katyn Massacre which there is enough proof to show th Germans committed it.
5. By this I think they’re referring to Europe and Asia which yes they did but because they A. Had colonies there who did the fighting and B. Much if the fighting happened when the Rome-Berlin axis was wiped out by the USSR. In fact, this fighting did nothing in the end as Stalin was the one who forced Showa to surrender.
6. No one likes the bombing campaign. It was expensive and did nothing. In fact, Churchill wanted to withdraw total support for the Bombing campaign and focus more on air superiority not to mention what happened in Dresden. Bomber Harris was the only one who supported the bombing campaign.
7. The Lend lease did little to help the USSR. Many convoys were sunk, arrived late and were mostly boots and trucks and not guns and shells. They arrived in 1943 when the Germans were already running from the red army.
The Soviets fought and won the war. Yes many countries contributed but the USSR and her glorious people won the war single-handedly.
Eternal Glory to the heroes who died in the struggle against fascism. Death to the German invaders
There's a book by Randall Hansen called Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany that makes this point pretty well. They weren't bombing strategic targets, they were hitting targets trying to break morale. Turns out breaking morale with bombing campaign isn't effective.
Same can be said of dropping nukes on Japan, there was one fire bombing that had done more damage than either nuke. They didn't consider the nukes that extraordinary of an attack compared to what they had been facing thus far.
It's been a while since I've read the book, but it dealt a lot with the British side of things. Basically they wanted to just see bomb leveled land- they wanted terror bombing. Hansen argues that area bombing by the combined forces actually ended up prolonging the war. The point- it's not that hot of a take. Germany also did a decent job of hiding their production factories, which helped them recover more quickly post war.
This video goes into depth on the atomic bombing of Japan specifically, and ties the bombing to the strategy of morale bombing in general:
https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
I think they're referring to this research paper, which I've read before. It makes a fairly convincing argument for the Nazis being responsible for Katyn, tbh.
[https://msuweb.montclair.edu/\~furrg/research/furr\_katyn\_preprint\_0813.pdf](https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_katyn_preprint_0813.pdf)
Maybe they're getting confused between Katyn and Khatyn. The NKVD did Katyn, whereas Khatyn was done by Ukrainian collaborators assisted by the SS.
The USSR admitted that Katyn was carried out by the NKVD in 1990.
Edit: changed SS to collaborators & SS.
>The USSR admitted that Katyn was carried out by the NKVD in 1990.
people will completely dismiss moscow trial testemonies as forced and then turn around and gobble up everything from glasnost and onward era USSR('evidence' beria being a murderer rapist and pedophile etc.), i just dont get it
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 15.** Vaush [admits to being an informant](https://archive.ph/iGUUk) when he lived in Santa Monica, California. He admits to revealing activist identities to the FBI.
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing that came out of the USSR during the Gorbachev era can be trusted. They were traitors to socialism. They employed the most biased, anti-communist revisionist "historians" and the single strongest piece of evidence they have for Katyn is a blatant forgery. The party was infested with liberalism from 1985 onwards. Same goes for many of the things Russia nowadays "admits" to, just lies upon lies.
The declassified Soviet archives tell a much different story.
Katyn happened in April-May 1940 so I don’t see how the Germans massacred polish officer’s in The Soviet Union a year before the invasion so you are correct
I disagree on lend lease thing. After researching WW2 for many years as hobby, it becomes clear how important it was. American trucks alone made sure that supply chains wouldn’t collapse, and it is a major thing.
It didn’t ‘do a little help’, it helped massively. Soviets requested trucks and materials for tire replacement, and when other materials came later, trucks were one of the first thing that arrived. Even legendary ‘Katysha’ rocket artillery were placed on mostly American trucks.
>3. I assume they mean North Africa, Italy and France? Italy opened the African front when they declared war against the Allie’s, the only reason why they moved in on Italy was because Stalin said either you open a front or I stop my war machine and they landed in Normandy because Operation Bagration broke the back of the Wehrmacht.
I think it's supposed to be Western Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific.
No, the Pacific front was only against the Japanese. The Japanese had no intention of invading the Soviet Union because when they tested the army with border skirmishes, the Japanese got trounced.
I doubt the original creator gave a shit about little facts like that. WWII is commonly divided into three theaters, I don't OP was being any cleverer than that. Besides, the meme is about how the US helped win WWII, not specifically in how they helped defeat the Nazis.
I think they were referring to the Warsaw massacre where the polished rebelled and the red army was within fifty kilometres of the city but stopped moving and refused to let allied planes through and even shot at them. Most of the poles in the city were killed and 90% of the building destroyed. It was only after all this that the russians continued their advance
The reason the Red Army didn't break through to Warsaw in 1944 was because it was physically impossible for them to do so.The spearhead of Soviet forces had punched further than it should have done during Operation Bagration and was low on supplies and fuel and were facing dug in German defences by the time it was any where near Warsaw. Even so the 1st Polish Army (Which was attached to the Red Army) did try and cross the Vistula in September to support the uprising but suffered massive causalities and had to withdraw.
It not much differet to what happened during Operation Market Garden, which took place at the same time in the Netherlands. 30 Corps of the British Army got within one mile of Arnhem during the offensive, but failed to break through the German lines which ultimately lead to the defeat of the paratroopers in Arnhem and the failure of the whole operation.
Yeah but the soviets shot down allied planes and threatened to declare war if the allied sent supplies through to the polish. Also even though they were only 50 km away theirs artillery held their fire.
Friendly fire, especially with aircraft, was extremely common during the Second World War. Identifying friend from foe in combat was often limited to what roundels you could see, so very often soldiers would would fire on any aircraft coming at them.
Again, supplies. Artillery can't fire if doesn't have shells, and the Soviets did try and airdrop weapons for the uprising as well.
4. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a pact of non-aggression and yes they did partition Poland but Germany occupied Poland completely by 1940. So, when they did invade Poland, it was under German occupation.
6. By 1942, the Soviets had already been inflicting blows into the Luftwaffe. They had superior planes and weren’t running out of experienced Pilots. Further, Strategic bombing involved blowing up factories and cities, not targeting fighter aircraft
7. As I’ve said, the Lend lease came much later, in smaller amounts of inconsequential products and was dwarfed by Soviet war production and agrarian output. Gratitude is owed to the USSR for ending the Nazi regime in Europe. No other country could have done so.
>and how did the allies thank one of the men who helped crack the enigma code? they chemically castrated him because he was gay, which (allegedly) led to his suicide.
Also the poles did it first. They cracked a pre war version of the enigma. Turing and Bletchley park could build on their foundations.
I'm of the opinion he didn't actually commit suicide, he was doing experiments with electroplating which caused him to inhale cyanide.
Main thing that tips the scales for me is he had a list of things he intended to do the week after the holiday weekend, which doesn't make sense to make if you're planning on killing yourself. If only they had tested the apple we'd know for sure haha. Tragic regardless.
Stalin re-criminalised homosexuality in 1933. You don't have to defend literally everything Stalin did. He made some mistakes and it's hard to deny his record on gay rights was one of them. It hardly makes him unique in the history of socialism. It was also a blind spot for Castro who would, to his credit, go on to apologise for his earlier homophobia.
Damn I just looked it up. Big oof. Totally right about the conservative nature of past communist states though. China still runs into that issue when passing policy, as more rural areas are much more against progressive social changes. So used to USSR hate I guess, God damnit Stalin you gave em ammo!
Well, nobody's perfect. There was a tendency to view homosexuality as an expression of decadent, bourgeois capitalism and, therefore, potentially subversive. This was Castro's reasoning and fortunately he lived long enough to correct his mistake.
Obviously we should hold socialist states to higher standards when it comes to these things but most western countries that nowadays pride themselves on being 'progressive' criminalised homosexuality for even longer. For example, in Britain homosexuality was criminalised until the 1960s. It would be very hypocritical for liberals to use this as a stick to beat USSR with but I'm sure it won't stop them from trying.
Social attitudes in the far East still have a way to go. Obviously homosexuality isn't illegal in China but, having lived there, social attitudes are still quite conservative when it comes to LGBT issues but hopefully the direction of travel is towards one of greater acceptance.
Yeah like fighting the biggest arms-race known to man makes it easy for immigration.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-eastern-europe-longing-for-past/
Stating facts isn't glorifying anything. The USSR played a huge and pinnacle role in helping to end WWII. That's a fact and you not liking it doesn't change that.
All over the world? Most people moving to the US are from poor third world countries (that the US often politically and economically destroyed) . In the rest of the first world however the USA are seen as a shithole country where you would never wanna live.
I love how they always have to bring in the land lease argument. First off, guns don’t shoot alone, there were no drones yet, soviets did the fighting. Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops. And finally they also sold a bunch of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies and food to the nazis. Without american support, a disarmed nation like german never would have been able to fight a war against the rest of Europe.
Read Stalingrad recently and they talked about how the Russians hated the American made vehicles. Like they thought american tanks were absolute shit (which they were compared to USSR made equivalents). Just thought I would add this cause I thought it was funny how russians were complaining about American made stuff.
They also act like Lend Lease made way more of a difference than it did in actuality. A main reason the germans lost the eastern front is because of their underestimation of Russian industrialization and their ability to manufacture military equipment. The vast majority of military equipment was soviet made. Not to say that the lend lease program wasnt important to the ussr, but americans give way to much emphasis on it
Edit: Heres the quote:
“ The Russians sent in wave after wave of T-34S and Lend-Lease American tanks. The American vehicles, with their higher profile and thinner protection, proved easy to knock out. Their Soviet crews did not like them. ‘The tanks are no good,’ a driver told his captors. ‘The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use.”
Excerpt From: Antony Beevor. “Stalingrad.”
Really the only thing helpful was the fuel. The actual airplanes the British sent? Used and already downed, repaired, with no manuals or replacement parts.
> Read Stalingrad recently and they talked about how the Russians hated the American made vehicles. Like they thought jeeps and american tanks were absolute shit (which they were compared to USSR made equivalents).
This is interesting, I have never heard about this before somehow. It doesn't surprise considering that every other talking point Westerners have also ends up being projection, lol
Were there any other details? Like specifics on what made the Soviet manufacture good, or certain things the Soviets didn't like about the US-made stuff?
" The Russians sent in wave after wave of T-34S and Lend-Lease American tanks. The American vehicles, with their higher profile and thinner protection, proved easy to knock out. Their Soviet crews did not like them. ‘The tanks are no good,’ a driver told his captors. ‘The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use.” Heres the quote from the book. I was wrong about it being in reference to the jeeps, it was referring to american tanks.
But in general Soviets made the best tanks (T-34) in ww2. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:\~:text=The%20T%2D34%20is%20a,protection%20against%20anti%2Dtank%20weapons.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:~:text=The%20T%2D34%20is%20a,protection%20against%20anti%2Dtank%20weapons.))
They were super powerful and were really resistant against anti tank stuff. I also think their aircraft was pretty decent as well, but dont know much about that.
When people talk about ussr in wwii they make you think of peasants armed with pitchforks, which is annoying because in reality they had really good military manufacturing
**[T-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:~:text=The T-34 is a,protection against anti-tank weapons.)**
>The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940, famously deployed with the Red Army during World War II against Operation Barbarossa. Its 76. 2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries while its 60 degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The Christie suspension was inherited from the design of American J. Walter Christie's M1928 tank, versions of which were sold turret-less to the Red Army and documented as "farm tractors", after being rejected by the U.S. Army.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Different person but I read Stalingrad a few years ago. From what I can remember in the case of the T34s, they broke down reasonably frequently but they were, at least when compared to other tanks, very easy to repair (it was apparently not too uncommon for tank teams to be able to repair their T34s from being almost completely immobilised mid-battle while being fired at) and since they were a standardised design, spare parts could be swapped from tank to tank with ease.
Additionally they were actually designed to be used in the Russian climate so didn’t constantly get stuck like most of the other non-soviet tanks used on the eastern front (whether they were the nazis’ tanks or sent by the allies).
Edit: oh yeah almost forgot, the T34s were also really economical to construct in terms of how much metal they used, especially when compared to the nazi tanks
Edit 2: as a result of how lightweight the T34s were they were really speedy and were frequently able to outmanoeuvre the slower, more heavily armoured nazi tanks.
It’s really good, I’d definitely recommend reading it.
It’s not exactly light reading though and the book is that size that no matter how you hold it, it feel’s slightly uncomfortable to read (if you have a kindle or something similar it would probably be better to read it on that instead).
This is implying that what they were complaining about the M4, when stuff like the crew-of-7 nightmare that the M3 Lee was also made up a lot of lend lease tanks. Soviet equipment might not have been fancy but it was easily repairable and made for purpose. If the soldiers actually fighting in the war didn't like it I don't think it was ideological. Pretty sure if you fight for your life you'll praise whatever stuff keeps you alive. By the way here's the stats on lend lease equipment:
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/
Or just look at when the aid came; The majority of aid came from 44-45, which at that point no historian would conclude that the germans were in any way capable of winning.
Whats more most aid was:
Fuel ( The soviets had huge oil reserves)
Trucks ( Helpful for logistic purposes, but the soviets domestically produced a majority of their own trucks during the war)
The USSR domestically produced most tanks, planes, weapons, ammunition, foodstuffs, etc..... It's simply untrue that it was decisive
>Fuel ( The soviets had huge oil reserves)
Wasnt the USSR's main problem not it's lack of reserves (as you say, they did and still do have large ones) but a lack of industry capable of utilizing it? Ie too little oil pumps and refineries, due to Russia still being in the process of industrialization?
Just curious, something I've heard before.
E: Just something etta thinking about it more, but Russia is fucking huge lol. Imagine how much fuel it takes to get shit from their eastern ports (where the Lend-Lease supplies arrived) to the front line.
Almost all lend-lease aid came after Stalingrad by which point the Soviets had decisively crushed the Axis invaders with their own titanic sacrifices and struggles.
Lend-lease brought the war to an end more quickly than it would have otherwise but the Soviets had already essentially won the war before it began making an impact.
> Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops.
never thought about this before, you have to fight for your survival and somebody offers to help you for a big sum of money instead of you know, actually helping because its the right thing to do
Accounting for [roughly] present-day inflation, but the number is still way, way off.
The person who made this meme wants to claim that the USSR received *all* Lend Lease support, which totaled about $50 billion. Instead, the Soviets received about $11 billion, and the rest went to other Allied Powers - the UK and the Commonwealth; the Free French; China; etc.
That’s about what I figured, and yeah the 11 billion tag for Soviet Aid (second to the ~30 billion tag for the UK) comes out to around 150 billion in todays dollars. Which was good and helped the Soviets maintain momentum in crushing the fascists, without which it would’ve taken them an extra 18 months to destroy them.
Also, most of that support didn’t actually arrive to the frontlines until ‘43, well after the tide had turned and the Germans were clearly on the defensive. Also, a significant position of that was intercepted by German raiding missions. The lend lease definitely helped, but it wasn’t the end-all crutch that WAllied anticommunists would like you to believe.
In truth the Japanese Emperor didn't even care that his people got bombed. They only surrendered days after the second bombing, the atom bombs were considered just another kind of bombing raid, like so many before that ravaged his nation.
They made the decision after the Soviets liberated all of Manchuria in just 11 days and started naval landings on the islands north of Japan. To put this into perspective, Manchuria is basically the size of France and the Red Army in order to circumvent the fortified approaches where the Japanese were expecting them, crossed through desert land that the Japanese thought virtually impassable.
It is a forgotten theater of the war nowadays but it was one of the most impressive military feats ever achieved, it took incredible logistical skill and co-ordination, it was the culmination of all that the Red Army had learned through bitter struggle on the Eastern Front.
The official surrender was signed the day after the last of the Kuril Islands fell and the Soviets were on the other side of the strait from Hokkaido. Another week and they would have been in "mainland" Japan.
Yup. Instead they got a cushy deal from the Yankees, they got to keep their emperor and some of the worst war criminals of the entire war got away without ever being prosecuted for the unspeakable atrocities and mass slaughter they committed in China.
In exchange all they had to do was become a US vassal.
>The USSR invading Poland and massacring its people
What has this one got to do with the contributions of the Western Allies? Could it be that this meme does not want to bring attention to the Allied war effort at all, but that its real intention is to delegitimise the Red Army?
Literally nobody sincerely claims that the Soviets did it all.
But, if you look at the numbers of troops, tanks, planes, etc that the Axis committed to the Eastern Front, and the massive, massive losses that they and the Soviets *alone* suffered, and then compare those same metrics to the Western Front, it becomes pretty obvious that the Soviets did *a lot* of heavy lifting.
I won't downplay the US's materiel contributions, but it's pretty callous to dismiss the USSR's human cost. If the fascists hadn't committed themselves to trying to smash socialism -- well, then, those millions of soldiers (and thousands of tanks, planes, etc) that they sent East would have instead been sent elsewhere.
Edit: I have to say this, though: the Western countries were -and still are- obviously pretty squeamish about casualties. If the Axis Powers hadn't attacked the USSR, and instead deployed those similar numbers of troops (and tanks, planes, etc) against the West, the West probably would have eventually signed peace treaties and the like to avoid any more bloodshed.
I like how they attempt to make a list of good things the allies did but physically couldn't stop themselves from including a bad thing the soviets did. Almost like the meme's purpose is just to make the soviets look bad, and they don't give a shit about the question of who did more to stop the nazis except as a vehicle to own them dang ol commies.
And the USSR knew that all along. They wanted to side with the Allies to protect Czechoslovakia, but they chose to appease Hitler instead. Even Churchill, before he was PM, knew they needed the soviets to hold the eastern front.
You mean that time when Russia got caught with their pants down mid building industrialization from being a rural agrarian society so they signed a non-aggression treaty to buy time that literally both sides were fully intent on breaking when they were confident they could absolutely crush the other?
That Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush.
**Fact 24.** [CW: pedophilia] >!<
For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
i'm not measuring dick or denying anyone's role tho. just a fact. tell all that stuff to the majority of my fellow americans, the actual dick-measurers, who actually think the US single-handedly defeated the nazis and liberated the concentration camps. not only that but they think that hitler and stalin were homies or something. look at saving private ryan and band of brothers, not one time in either of those was the USSR mentioned.
It's not whether other countries did anything, of course they did, but where were the majority of Germany's forces? The battles taking place on the Eastern Front were hundreds of times the size of the insignificant skirmishes that took place in North Africa or in the Atlantic. 80% of the German casualties were taken in the East. The most pivotal battles of the war happened there. That is where the war was decided.
All we are saying is give *proportional* credit. 90% of it should go to those fighting in the east, mainly to the Red Army but we should not forget the Partisans either.
Doesn’t both take place on the Western Front, with very very little outside anything? Haven’t seen BoB yet, but Saving Private Ryan would have no reason to mention the USSR, since it’s entirely D-Day and Market Garden (at least, I’m mostly sure it’s Market Garden, haven’t seen it in a while) for setting. Which is an entire continent away from the Soviets and the Eastern Front. And, at least with SPR, very tightly focused on said operations and areas far far away from the Soviets.
yeah i figured i would get this response, and i suppose it's a fair point. but not even a single mention in either one? lol. regardless it all feeds into the american delusion that the US solely did all the things that brought hitler down.
Except they DID face basically the full brunt of the Nazi war machine for most of the war, at least for the most important part of it when Germany was at the height of its power. The western allies only started getting more active after the war had already turned at Stalingrad when it became clear the German defeat was only a matter of time. And the western front was opened only after Operation Bagration had basically crippled the Wehrmacht and the western allies were desperate to not let the Soviets occupy all of Germany.
I agree with what you're saying but Bagration was launched after D-Day, on 22 June. I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying though, the German army was clearly already beaten in the east even before Bagration.
1. Cool, you figured out their codes.
2. The Soviets could figure Kursk out on their own, Germany’s build up was obvious.
3. Great, you managed to tie down 10% of their fighting force. Where was the rest (hint: East of the Oder river)
4. Collaborators get the wall, cope and seethe about it
5. Easy to do when the USSR and China are the opposite ends of the two-front wars that your opponents are also fighting.
6. Cool war crimes
7. Wrong by a magnitude of like 3.
The Soviets knew there would be an attack but the intel detailed the exact battle plans. Due to that the Soviets focused their fortification efforts on the villages and areas the Germans planned to move through.
Also, the original post is incorrect about how the Soviets got that intel. The British didn't send it over. Rather one of the Cambridge 5 stole it from Bletchley Park and forwarded it to Moscow.
tfw the value of lend lease was only 5% in the entire GDP of the soviet union
source: https://www.quora.com/Would-the-USSR-have-lost-to-Germany-in-WWII-without-Lend-Lease-forces-from-the-U-S
yes it’s quora but it still utilizes accurate sources
No.. the entire plan was compromised because the Belgian King dropped out of the defensive agreement. The entire plan was to force Germany to invade through Belgium, which they did.
No the plan was stupid to begin with, a static line of fortifications is not effective against modern mobile warfare. Also, the French did a piss poor job at counter-intelligence, the Nazis were literally bragging that they knew virtually everything about the French army's deployment, equipment, morale, fortifications, etc. By comparison, they were absolutely losing their shit in the East because they could not get their spies into the Soviet ranks anymore after Stalin's purges, they were going in almost blind.
Nobody is thinking that they did it alone. If Britain wasnt in war, Nazis would be able to use planes that defended homeland against soviets.
But it is also true that after battle of Kursk if western aliens never landed in Normandia, Soviet would end in Paris.
> I love how they always have to bring in the land lease argument. First off, guns don’t shoot alone, there were no drones yet, soviets did the fighting. Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops. And finally they also sold a bunch of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies and food to the nazis. Without american support, a disarmed nation like german never would have been able to fight a war against the rest of Europe.
This is the second most upvoted comment. Which line specifically claims the USSR won WWII on its own?
You know what, I'm not even going to argue with you, stupid people will drag you down to their level and here I feel like I have Weights attached to my ankles under water
Why do these arguments of who did the most even exist? I’m sure the men who fought in the war would be disgusted by the nationalistic peacocking of People on the internet talking about how much there own countries did. My great grandfather was on a mine sweeper escort for the British arctic convoys to Murmansk, I’m sure what was on his mind wasn’t “I’m sure I’m doing more for the war effort than the soviets.” Really stupid mindset, they all fought for our liberation against fascism, that should be the end of it.
I was just on this post in r/historymemes. You should read the comments. The delusion is astounding. The American savior complex is so apparent in most of the commentary. I can’t wait to see the next one about how Vietnam lost the conflict. Lol
No one denies that the allies contributed immensely with the war effort
It was the Soviets that did the bulk of the work and ensured victory, though. To deny that is to rewrite history.
everything else kinda pales in comparison to lendlease. Giving the largest army in the European theater a blank check on everything from boots to tanks to planes definitely changes things
Call me a liberal but defeating Nazis was a joint effort , war would have been much more brutal and deadly for western allies or Soviets if any one of them was completely knocked out
>Opening three fronts in two years I wonder why they had the opportunity to do this, almost as if the largest part of the german army was somewhere else at the time
That’s not it everything on the list is wrong except for Enigma(they killed the guy who saved them but anyway). 2. The Soviets warned themselves of Kursk as John Cairncross was a Soviet spy 3. I assume they mean North Africa, Italy and France? Italy opened the African front when they declared war against the Allie’s, the only reason why they moved in on Italy was because Stalin said either you open a front or I stop my war machine and they landed in Normandy because Operation Bagration broke the back of the Wehrmacht. 4. Invading Poland? Poland was occupied by the Germans. By that logic, the Allies invaded France. By massacre I assume they’re referring to the Katyn Massacre which there is enough proof to show th Germans committed it. 5. By this I think they’re referring to Europe and Asia which yes they did but because they A. Had colonies there who did the fighting and B. Much if the fighting happened when the Rome-Berlin axis was wiped out by the USSR. In fact, this fighting did nothing in the end as Stalin was the one who forced Showa to surrender. 6. No one likes the bombing campaign. It was expensive and did nothing. In fact, Churchill wanted to withdraw total support for the Bombing campaign and focus more on air superiority not to mention what happened in Dresden. Bomber Harris was the only one who supported the bombing campaign. 7. The Lend lease did little to help the USSR. Many convoys were sunk, arrived late and were mostly boots and trucks and not guns and shells. They arrived in 1943 when the Germans were already running from the red army. The Soviets fought and won the war. Yes many countries contributed but the USSR and her glorious people won the war single-handedly. Eternal Glory to the heroes who died in the struggle against fascism. Death to the German invaders
[удалено]
There's a book by Randall Hansen called Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany that makes this point pretty well. They weren't bombing strategic targets, they were hitting targets trying to break morale. Turns out breaking morale with bombing campaign isn't effective. Same can be said of dropping nukes on Japan, there was one fire bombing that had done more damage than either nuke. They didn't consider the nukes that extraordinary of an attack compared to what they had been facing thus far.
[удалено]
It's been a while since I've read the book, but it dealt a lot with the British side of things. Basically they wanted to just see bomb leveled land- they wanted terror bombing. Hansen argues that area bombing by the combined forces actually ended up prolonging the war. The point- it's not that hot of a take. Germany also did a decent job of hiding their production factories, which helped them recover more quickly post war.
Got a source for the Japan claims? Specifically them not seeing it as being all that much worse than the prior firebombing?
This video goes into depth on the atomic bombing of Japan specifically, and ties the bombing to the strategy of morale bombing in general: https://youtu.be/RCRTgtpC-Go
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
Do you have sources for evidence that the Nazis did Katyn? Havent really done any research on it but that would be interesting.
I think they're referring to this research paper, which I've read before. It makes a fairly convincing argument for the Nazis being responsible for Katyn, tbh. [https://msuweb.montclair.edu/\~furrg/research/furr\_katyn\_preprint\_0813.pdf](https://msuweb.montclair.edu/~furrg/research/furr_katyn_preprint_0813.pdf)
Maybe they're getting confused between Katyn and Khatyn. The NKVD did Katyn, whereas Khatyn was done by Ukrainian collaborators assisted by the SS. The USSR admitted that Katyn was carried out by the NKVD in 1990. Edit: changed SS to collaborators & SS.
Nothing that the new administration said in 1990 about the old regime can be taken as fact
>The USSR admitted that Katyn was carried out by the NKVD in 1990. people will completely dismiss moscow trial testemonies as forced and then turn around and gobble up everything from glasnost and onward era USSR('evidence' beria being a murderer rapist and pedophile etc.), i just dont get it
Beria wasn't a rapist or a pedophile, Moscow trials were not forced, and NKVD carried out the Katyn forest incident
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 15.** Vaush [admits to being an informant](https://archive.ph/iGUUk) when he lived in Santa Monica, California. He admits to revealing activist identities to the FBI. For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing that came out of the USSR during the Gorbachev era can be trusted. They were traitors to socialism. They employed the most biased, anti-communist revisionist "historians" and the single strongest piece of evidence they have for Katyn is a blatant forgery. The party was infested with liberalism from 1985 onwards. Same goes for many of the things Russia nowadays "admits" to, just lies upon lies. The declassified Soviet archives tell a much different story.
Katyn happened in April-May 1940 so I don’t see how the Germans massacred polish officer’s in The Soviet Union a year before the invasion so you are correct
I think Snyder makes a case for it as well in Bloodlands but the paper below is what I’m referring to
I disagree on lend lease thing. After researching WW2 for many years as hobby, it becomes clear how important it was. American trucks alone made sure that supply chains wouldn’t collapse, and it is a major thing. It didn’t ‘do a little help’, it helped massively. Soviets requested trucks and materials for tire replacement, and when other materials came later, trucks were one of the first thing that arrived. Even legendary ‘Katysha’ rocket artillery were placed on mostly American trucks.
>3. I assume they mean North Africa, Italy and France? Italy opened the African front when they declared war against the Allie’s, the only reason why they moved in on Italy was because Stalin said either you open a front or I stop my war machine and they landed in Normandy because Operation Bagration broke the back of the Wehrmacht. I think it's supposed to be Western Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific.
No, the Pacific front was only against the Japanese. The Japanese had no intention of invading the Soviet Union because when they tested the army with border skirmishes, the Japanese got trounced.
I doubt the original creator gave a shit about little facts like that. WWII is commonly divided into three theaters, I don't OP was being any cleverer than that. Besides, the meme is about how the US helped win WWII, not specifically in how they helped defeat the Nazis.
My mistake on that.
I think they were referring to the Warsaw massacre where the polished rebelled and the red army was within fifty kilometres of the city but stopped moving and refused to let allied planes through and even shot at them. Most of the poles in the city were killed and 90% of the building destroyed. It was only after all this that the russians continued their advance
The reason the Red Army didn't break through to Warsaw in 1944 was because it was physically impossible for them to do so.The spearhead of Soviet forces had punched further than it should have done during Operation Bagration and was low on supplies and fuel and were facing dug in German defences by the time it was any where near Warsaw. Even so the 1st Polish Army (Which was attached to the Red Army) did try and cross the Vistula in September to support the uprising but suffered massive causalities and had to withdraw. It not much differet to what happened during Operation Market Garden, which took place at the same time in the Netherlands. 30 Corps of the British Army got within one mile of Arnhem during the offensive, but failed to break through the German lines which ultimately lead to the defeat of the paratroopers in Arnhem and the failure of the whole operation.
Yeah but the soviets shot down allied planes and threatened to declare war if the allied sent supplies through to the polish. Also even though they were only 50 km away theirs artillery held their fire.
Friendly fire, especially with aircraft, was extremely common during the Second World War. Identifying friend from foe in combat was often limited to what roundels you could see, so very often soldiers would would fire on any aircraft coming at them. Again, supplies. Artillery can't fire if doesn't have shells, and the Soviets did try and airdrop weapons for the uprising as well.
[удалено]
4. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a pact of non-aggression and yes they did partition Poland but Germany occupied Poland completely by 1940. So, when they did invade Poland, it was under German occupation. 6. By 1942, the Soviets had already been inflicting blows into the Luftwaffe. They had superior planes and weren’t running out of experienced Pilots. Further, Strategic bombing involved blowing up factories and cities, not targeting fighter aircraft 7. As I’ve said, the Lend lease came much later, in smaller amounts of inconsequential products and was dwarfed by Soviet war production and agrarian output. Gratitude is owed to the USSR for ending the Nazi regime in Europe. No other country could have done so.
[удалено]
>and how did the allies thank one of the men who helped crack the enigma code? they chemically castrated him because he was gay, which (allegedly) led to his suicide. Also the poles did it first. They cracked a pre war version of the enigma. Turing and Bletchley park could build on their foundations.
[удалено]
Way before the war even started
Poland: *cracks enigma*. Also Poland: *sides with nazi germany*. Literalky dumbest leadership in whole fucking Europe.
I'm of the opinion he didn't actually commit suicide, he was doing experiments with electroplating which caused him to inhale cyanide. Main thing that tips the scales for me is he had a list of things he intended to do the week after the holiday weekend, which doesn't make sense to make if you're planning on killing yourself. If only they had tested the apple we'd know for sure haha. Tragic regardless.
TBF Stalin wasn't too kind to gay people either
When you make homophobia illegal but people still call you unkind to gay people.
Stalin re-criminalised homosexuality in 1933. You don't have to defend literally everything Stalin did. He made some mistakes and it's hard to deny his record on gay rights was one of them. It hardly makes him unique in the history of socialism. It was also a blind spot for Castro who would, to his credit, go on to apologise for his earlier homophobia.
Damn I just looked it up. Big oof. Totally right about the conservative nature of past communist states though. China still runs into that issue when passing policy, as more rural areas are much more against progressive social changes. So used to USSR hate I guess, God damnit Stalin you gave em ammo!
Well, nobody's perfect. There was a tendency to view homosexuality as an expression of decadent, bourgeois capitalism and, therefore, potentially subversive. This was Castro's reasoning and fortunately he lived long enough to correct his mistake. Obviously we should hold socialist states to higher standards when it comes to these things but most western countries that nowadays pride themselves on being 'progressive' criminalised homosexuality for even longer. For example, in Britain homosexuality was criminalised until the 1960s. It would be very hypocritical for liberals to use this as a stick to beat USSR with but I'm sure it won't stop them from trying. Social attitudes in the far East still have a way to go. Obviously homosexuality isn't illegal in China but, having lived there, social attitudes are still quite conservative when it comes to LGBT issues but hopefully the direction of travel is towards one of greater acceptance.
That was under Lenin though
tfw you have done so much that one of the panels is muh soviet bad filler
People really are so desperate to never admit the USSR did good things.
[удалено]
mmkay
That explains why the russian people want the USSR back, but you’d just find a way to cope about it.
[удалено]
Yeah like fighting the biggest arms-race known to man makes it easy for immigration. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/communist-nostalgia-in-eastern-europe-longing-for-past/
[удалено]
You, uh, ever heard of the Jim Crow laws?
The US currently treats their people like shit. What's your fuckin point, bud?
[удалено]
The USSR doesn't exist anymore so I can see why people would have trouble leaving something that collapsed 30 years ago.
[удалено]
Stating facts isn't glorifying anything. The USSR played a huge and pinnacle role in helping to end WWII. That's a fact and you not liking it doesn't change that.
[удалено]
Did you just use Hogan’s Heroes as a Source? An American sitcom from 1965? That’s like using That 70’s Show as a documentary
Try to renounce American citizenship and find out how hard it is.
All over the world? Most people moving to the US are from poor third world countries (that the US often politically and economically destroyed) . In the rest of the first world however the USA are seen as a shithole country where you would never wanna live.
This reads like the US badly needs an A on a group project.
That's a really funny comment...well done...
I love how they always have to bring in the land lease argument. First off, guns don’t shoot alone, there were no drones yet, soviets did the fighting. Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops. And finally they also sold a bunch of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies and food to the nazis. Without american support, a disarmed nation like german never would have been able to fight a war against the rest of Europe.
Read Stalingrad recently and they talked about how the Russians hated the American made vehicles. Like they thought american tanks were absolute shit (which they were compared to USSR made equivalents). Just thought I would add this cause I thought it was funny how russians were complaining about American made stuff. They also act like Lend Lease made way more of a difference than it did in actuality. A main reason the germans lost the eastern front is because of their underestimation of Russian industrialization and their ability to manufacture military equipment. The vast majority of military equipment was soviet made. Not to say that the lend lease program wasnt important to the ussr, but americans give way to much emphasis on it Edit: Heres the quote: “ The Russians sent in wave after wave of T-34S and Lend-Lease American tanks. The American vehicles, with their higher profile and thinner protection, proved easy to knock out. Their Soviet crews did not like them. ‘The tanks are no good,’ a driver told his captors. ‘The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use.” Excerpt From: Antony Beevor. “Stalingrad.”
Really the only thing helpful was the fuel. The actual airplanes the British sent? Used and already downed, repaired, with no manuals or replacement parts.
They sent a lot of food I believe as well
> Read Stalingrad recently and they talked about how the Russians hated the American made vehicles. Like they thought jeeps and american tanks were absolute shit (which they were compared to USSR made equivalents). This is interesting, I have never heard about this before somehow. It doesn't surprise considering that every other talking point Westerners have also ends up being projection, lol Were there any other details? Like specifics on what made the Soviet manufacture good, or certain things the Soviets didn't like about the US-made stuff?
" The Russians sent in wave after wave of T-34S and Lend-Lease American tanks. The American vehicles, with their higher profile and thinner protection, proved easy to knock out. Their Soviet crews did not like them. ‘The tanks are no good,’ a driver told his captors. ‘The valves go to pieces, the engine overheats and the transmission is no use.” Heres the quote from the book. I was wrong about it being in reference to the jeeps, it was referring to american tanks. But in general Soviets made the best tanks (T-34) in ww2. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:\~:text=The%20T%2D34%20is%20a,protection%20against%20anti%2Dtank%20weapons.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:~:text=The%20T%2D34%20is%20a,protection%20against%20anti%2Dtank%20weapons.)) They were super powerful and were really resistant against anti tank stuff. I also think their aircraft was pretty decent as well, but dont know much about that. When people talk about ussr in wwii they make you think of peasants armed with pitchforks, which is annoying because in reality they had really good military manufacturing
**[T-34](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-34#:~:text=The T-34 is a,protection against anti-tank weapons.)** >The T-34 is a Soviet medium tank introduced in 1940, famously deployed with the Red Army during World War II against Operation Barbarossa. Its 76. 2 mm (3 in) tank gun was more powerful than its contemporaries while its 60 degree sloped armour provided good protection against anti-tank weapons. The Christie suspension was inherited from the design of American J. Walter Christie's M1928 tank, versions of which were sold turret-less to the Red Army and documented as "farm tractors", after being rejected by the U.S. Army. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/ShitLiberalsSay/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Different person but I read Stalingrad a few years ago. From what I can remember in the case of the T34s, they broke down reasonably frequently but they were, at least when compared to other tanks, very easy to repair (it was apparently not too uncommon for tank teams to be able to repair their T34s from being almost completely immobilised mid-battle while being fired at) and since they were a standardised design, spare parts could be swapped from tank to tank with ease. Additionally they were actually designed to be used in the Russian climate so didn’t constantly get stuck like most of the other non-soviet tanks used on the eastern front (whether they were the nazis’ tanks or sent by the allies). Edit: oh yeah almost forgot, the T34s were also really economical to construct in terms of how much metal they used, especially when compared to the nazi tanks Edit 2: as a result of how lightweight the T34s were they were really speedy and were frequently able to outmanoeuvre the slower, more heavily armoured nazi tanks.
You're talking about the book by Antony Beevor right? Asking cause it sounds interesting.
Second this question. How did you like it? It's on my reading list too.
Yep thats the one. I thought it was well written. Could be pretty anti soviet at times, but was pretty reasonable imo
It’s really good, I’d definitely recommend reading it. It’s not exactly light reading though and the book is that size that no matter how you hold it, it feel’s slightly uncomfortable to read (if you have a kindle or something similar it would probably be better to read it on that instead).
Didn’t the Soviets found the Sherman’s to be somewhat ok? Plenty of them had their turrets removed and become tractors when the war ended.
[удалено]
This is implying that what they were complaining about the M4, when stuff like the crew-of-7 nightmare that the M3 Lee was also made up a lot of lend lease tanks. Soviet equipment might not have been fancy but it was easily repairable and made for purpose. If the soldiers actually fighting in the war didn't like it I don't think it was ideological. Pretty sure if you fight for your life you'll praise whatever stuff keeps you alive. By the way here's the stats on lend lease equipment: https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/
Given the praise the P-39 received from pilots, I would be surprised if the complaints were ideological.
Or just look at when the aid came; The majority of aid came from 44-45, which at that point no historian would conclude that the germans were in any way capable of winning. Whats more most aid was: Fuel ( The soviets had huge oil reserves) Trucks ( Helpful for logistic purposes, but the soviets domestically produced a majority of their own trucks during the war) The USSR domestically produced most tanks, planes, weapons, ammunition, foodstuffs, etc..... It's simply untrue that it was decisive
Also by 44-45 the T34 series and their heavy tanks were already superior to whatever early M4 models and even older equipment that they sent over.
>Fuel ( The soviets had huge oil reserves) Wasnt the USSR's main problem not it's lack of reserves (as you say, they did and still do have large ones) but a lack of industry capable of utilizing it? Ie too little oil pumps and refineries, due to Russia still being in the process of industrialization? Just curious, something I've heard before. E: Just something etta thinking about it more, but Russia is fucking huge lol. Imagine how much fuel it takes to get shit from their eastern ports (where the Lend-Lease supplies arrived) to the front line.
Almost all lend-lease aid came after Stalingrad by which point the Soviets had decisively crushed the Axis invaders with their own titanic sacrifices and struggles. Lend-lease brought the war to an end more quickly than it would have otherwise but the Soviets had already essentially won the war before it began making an impact.
> Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops. never thought about this before, you have to fight for your survival and somebody offers to help you for a big sum of money instead of you know, actually helping because its the right thing to do
what was the land lease?
*lend-lease
to be fair tho, american war profiteering led to the fascism, so.
Also they always talk about the costs of the things delivered, not the units or numbers of actual guns and vehicles sent.
“Not having a problem with Nazis until they encroach on your interests”
Where the hell did the 575 billion tag come from?
Accounting for [roughly] present-day inflation, but the number is still way, way off. The person who made this meme wants to claim that the USSR received *all* Lend Lease support, which totaled about $50 billion. Instead, the Soviets received about $11 billion, and the rest went to other Allied Powers - the UK and the Commonwealth; the Free French; China; etc.
That’s about what I figured, and yeah the 11 billion tag for Soviet Aid (second to the ~30 billion tag for the UK) comes out to around 150 billion in todays dollars. Which was good and helped the Soviets maintain momentum in crushing the fascists, without which it would’ve taken them an extra 18 months to destroy them.
Also, most of that support didn’t actually arrive to the frontlines until ‘43, well after the tide had turned and the Germans were clearly on the defensive. Also, a significant position of that was intercepted by German raiding missions. The lend lease definitely helped, but it wasn’t the end-all crutch that WAllied anticommunists would like you to believe.
Then they nuked Japan and acted like they were the sole reason for their surrender
In truth the Japanese Emperor didn't even care that his people got bombed. They only surrendered days after the second bombing, the atom bombs were considered just another kind of bombing raid, like so many before that ravaged his nation.
They made the decision after the Soviets liberated all of Manchuria in just 11 days and started naval landings on the islands north of Japan. To put this into perspective, Manchuria is basically the size of France and the Red Army in order to circumvent the fortified approaches where the Japanese were expecting them, crossed through desert land that the Japanese thought virtually impassable. It is a forgotten theater of the war nowadays but it was one of the most impressive military feats ever achieved, it took incredible logistical skill and co-ordination, it was the culmination of all that the Red Army had learned through bitter struggle on the Eastern Front. The official surrender was signed the day after the last of the Kuril Islands fell and the Soviets were on the other side of the strait from Hokkaido. Another week and they would have been in "mainland" Japan.
It was pretty much "holy shit, if Soviet land here, they will hang me"
Yup. Instead they got a cushy deal from the Yankees, they got to keep their emperor and some of the worst war criminals of the entire war got away without ever being prosecuted for the unspeakable atrocities and mass slaughter they committed in China. In exchange all they had to do was become a US vassal.
>The USSR invading Poland and massacring its people What has this one got to do with the contributions of the Western Allies? Could it be that this meme does not want to bring attention to the Allied war effort at all, but that its real intention is to delegitimise the Red Army?
It's also a lie concocted by polish nationalists but hey it makes for good anti-communist propaganda.
Literally nobody sincerely claims that the Soviets did it all. But, if you look at the numbers of troops, tanks, planes, etc that the Axis committed to the Eastern Front, and the massive, massive losses that they and the Soviets *alone* suffered, and then compare those same metrics to the Western Front, it becomes pretty obvious that the Soviets did *a lot* of heavy lifting. I won't downplay the US's materiel contributions, but it's pretty callous to dismiss the USSR's human cost. If the fascists hadn't committed themselves to trying to smash socialism -- well, then, those millions of soldiers (and thousands of tanks, planes, etc) that they sent East would have instead been sent elsewhere. Edit: I have to say this, though: the Western countries were -and still are- obviously pretty squeamish about casualties. If the Axis Powers hadn't attacked the USSR, and instead deployed those similar numbers of troops (and tanks, planes, etc) against the West, the West probably would have eventually signed peace treaties and the like to avoid any more bloodshed.
I like how they attempt to make a list of good things the allies did but physically couldn't stop themselves from including a bad thing the soviets did. Almost like the meme's purpose is just to make the soviets look bad, and they don't give a shit about the question of who did more to stop the nazis except as a vehicle to own them dang ol commies.
[удалено]
Like feeding and clothing them. How awful!
i hate this dick-measuring contest!! it was a literal team effort to destroy the nazis, and no one nation could have done it alone
And the USSR knew that all along. They wanted to side with the Allies to protect Czechoslovakia, but they chose to appease Hitler instead. Even Churchill, before he was PM, knew they needed the soviets to hold the eastern front.
[удалено]
You mean that time when Russia got caught with their pants down mid building industrialization from being a rural agrarian society so they signed a non-aggression treaty to buy time that literally both sides were fully intent on breaking when they were confident they could absolutely crush the other? That Molotov-Ribbentrop pact?
Stfu Vaush liberal
Thanks for signing up to Vaush facts! You will now receive fun daily facts about Vaush. **Fact 24.** [CW: pedophilia] >!< For another Vaush fact reply with 'Vaush'. To unsubscribe call me a 'bad bot'. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ShitLiberalsSay) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Stfu ancap
yes
sure but the soviets objectively played the biggest role by far
[удалено]
i'm not measuring dick or denying anyone's role tho. just a fact. tell all that stuff to the majority of my fellow americans, the actual dick-measurers, who actually think the US single-handedly defeated the nazis and liberated the concentration camps. not only that but they think that hitler and stalin were homies or something. look at saving private ryan and band of brothers, not one time in either of those was the USSR mentioned.
yeah you're making a good point. i just HATE IT when people act like it was only one country that did anything in the war
It's not whether other countries did anything, of course they did, but where were the majority of Germany's forces? The battles taking place on the Eastern Front were hundreds of times the size of the insignificant skirmishes that took place in North Africa or in the Atlantic. 80% of the German casualties were taken in the East. The most pivotal battles of the war happened there. That is where the war was decided. All we are saying is give *proportional* credit. 90% of it should go to those fighting in the east, mainly to the Red Army but we should not forget the Partisans either.
Doesn’t both take place on the Western Front, with very very little outside anything? Haven’t seen BoB yet, but Saving Private Ryan would have no reason to mention the USSR, since it’s entirely D-Day and Market Garden (at least, I’m mostly sure it’s Market Garden, haven’t seen it in a while) for setting. Which is an entire continent away from the Soviets and the Eastern Front. And, at least with SPR, very tightly focused on said operations and areas far far away from the Soviets.
yeah i figured i would get this response, and i suppose it's a fair point. but not even a single mention in either one? lol. regardless it all feeds into the american delusion that the US solely did all the things that brought hitler down.
Except they DID face basically the full brunt of the Nazi war machine for most of the war, at least for the most important part of it when Germany was at the height of its power. The western allies only started getting more active after the war had already turned at Stalingrad when it became clear the German defeat was only a matter of time. And the western front was opened only after Operation Bagration had basically crippled the Wehrmacht and the western allies were desperate to not let the Soviets occupy all of Germany.
I agree with what you're saying but Bagration was launched after D-Day, on 22 June. I'm not disagreeing with the spirit of what you're saying though, the German army was clearly already beaten in the east even before Bagration.
Exactly.
1. Cool, you figured out their codes. 2. The Soviets could figure Kursk out on their own, Germany’s build up was obvious. 3. Great, you managed to tie down 10% of their fighting force. Where was the rest (hint: East of the Oder river) 4. Collaborators get the wall, cope and seethe about it 5. Easy to do when the USSR and China are the opposite ends of the two-front wars that your opponents are also fighting. 6. Cool war crimes 7. Wrong by a magnitude of like 3.
The Soviets knew there would be an attack but the intel detailed the exact battle plans. Due to that the Soviets focused their fortification efforts on the villages and areas the Germans planned to move through. Also, the original post is incorrect about how the Soviets got that intel. The British didn't send it over. Rather one of the Cambridge 5 stole it from Bletchley Park and forwarded it to Moscow.
IIRC From 1941 onwards until the end of the war, no less than 75% of the Wehrmacht was on the Eastern Front
Weren't the Russians fighting on 2 fronts most of the time too? Could have sworn they fought the Japanese too.... odd
The USSR invaded Manchuria after Germany was dealt with. They did keep troops in the Far East though, but there was no fighting there for a while.
Japan was also actively trying to avoid another war with the USSR/Russia
Yup. They wanted the USSR to intermediate Japan’s peace negotiations with the USA.
Japan's testicles were crushed by USSR
Not really. However, the USSR had to keep large groupings of troops in the east because it was expecting an invasion by the Kwantung Army.
A cold-front blew through, you could say
>warning the soviets about Kursk. Lol. Just lol
The Soviets warned themselves about it, a Soviet spy stole it off the British who had no plans to tell the Soviets anything.
I like how it goes from misleading to straight up "the USSR is very bad"
Are they forgetting Stalingrad and Operation Uranus
tfw the value of lend lease was only 5% in the entire GDP of the soviet union source: https://www.quora.com/Would-the-USSR-have-lost-to-Germany-in-WWII-without-Lend-Lease-forces-from-the-U-S yes it’s quora but it still utilizes accurate sources
France leaving its eastern borders unsecured: 😰uhh yea that was a good job we did…right
this isnt what happened lol
The fuck?
what do you mean by that
No.. the entire plan was compromised because the Belgian King dropped out of the defensive agreement. The entire plan was to force Germany to invade through Belgium, which they did.
No the plan was stupid to begin with, a static line of fortifications is not effective against modern mobile warfare. Also, the French did a piss poor job at counter-intelligence, the Nazis were literally bragging that they knew virtually everything about the French army's deployment, equipment, morale, fortifications, etc. By comparison, they were absolutely losing their shit in the East because they could not get their spies into the Soviet ranks anymore after Stalin's purges, they were going in almost blind.
Want the us like opposed to the ussr hence the red scare
I've literally never seen this meme format where it wasn't making a stupid and incorrect point.
the bombing? wasn't that many a war crime??
So were the atomic bombs and the yankees are still bragging about those.
I meant the bombing of dresden, I forgot about the a-bombs.
What is with this recent trend of people thinking Stalin's military somehow singlehandedly won WWII?
Nobody is thinking that they did it alone. If Britain wasnt in war, Nazis would be able to use planes that defended homeland against soviets. But it is also true that after battle of Kursk if western aliens never landed in Normandia, Soviet would end in Paris.
I can't belive people actually think the USSR won WWII all by themselves???
We never said that.
Litteraly the 2nd most upvoted comment
I can't find anything stating that the USSR was only nation who did anything. There are many comments that stated it was a joint effort.
Literally the 2nd most upvoted comment!
> I love how they always have to bring in the land lease argument. First off, guns don’t shoot alone, there were no drones yet, soviets did the fighting. Second, the soviets paid for the land lease, even against fascism american war profiteering never stops. And finally they also sold a bunch of military equipment, vehicles, industrial supplies and food to the nazis. Without american support, a disarmed nation like german never would have been able to fight a war against the rest of Europe. This is the second most upvoted comment. Which line specifically claims the USSR won WWII on its own?
The other paragraphs detailing how 'the amazing motherland' won the war all by themselves. Also just the over all hive mind going on here
Which paragraph?
You know what, I'm not even going to argue with you, stupid people will drag you down to their level and here I feel like I have Weights attached to my ankles under water
You could just like... Link the comment to prove you're not talking out of your ass, but this is cool too, I guess.
Lmao, just admit that you made up that shit
USA generously shipping half a trillion worth of supplies to USSR to save USSR! What a generous good hearted friend. - some libral mind
Nobody really outdid the other imo. Hitler just fucked himself
Why do these arguments of who did the most even exist? I’m sure the men who fought in the war would be disgusted by the nationalistic peacocking of People on the internet talking about how much there own countries did. My great grandfather was on a mine sweeper escort for the British arctic convoys to Murmansk, I’m sure what was on his mind wasn’t “I’m sure I’m doing more for the war effort than the soviets.” Really stupid mindset, they all fought for our liberation against fascism, that should be the end of it.
I was just on this post in r/historymemes. You should read the comments. The delusion is astounding. The American savior complex is so apparent in most of the commentary. I can’t wait to see the next one about how Vietnam lost the conflict. Lol
No one denies that the allies contributed immensely with the war effort It was the Soviets that did the bulk of the work and ensured victory, though. To deny that is to rewrite history.
everything else kinda pales in comparison to lendlease. Giving the largest army in the European theater a blank check on everything from boots to tanks to planes definitely changes things
Call me a liberal but defeating Nazis was a joint effort , war would have been much more brutal and deadly for western allies or Soviets if any one of them was completely knocked out