Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Stalin BEGGED FDR to open a second front starting in 1942. Instead, FDR held off invasion till June 1944. In that time, Stalin killed millions of German troops and sacrificed tens of millions of his own people.the deal we got was a crap deal. fdr deserves no credit for it. he should never had run for that fourth term.
How was it a crap deal when FDR got Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying for four years?
We saved Western Europe with minimal casualties. The Soviets got Eastern Europe in return for tens of millions of casualties.
fdr had nothing to do with that. that was all hitler. he invaded stalinist russia and forced them to fight.
until that, stalin was happy to have peace and trade and hugs with nazi germany.
yes, we saved western europe with minimal casualties. and set up the next big conflict as we did it.
short term thinking.
See you've totally ignored my question on Holocaust denial? Fine.in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.
Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?
Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.
What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?
change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.
so, you're wrong.
your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.
General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.
Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.
Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."
When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in w:st="on">Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.
This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."
Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."
Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman toclass=apple-converted-space> continue to view the Russians benevolently.class=apple-converted-space>
In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260
Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.
we americans tend to short term thinking. we were facing the nazis and we were happy to have the russians fighting them too.
but the cost, ,was very, very high. half of europe and a new war, starting immediately after.
Not to mention the resultant neo-Marxism that infects our society and major party.
Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary
More RW revisionist history
The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.
We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.
of course, without the alliance between nazi germany and stalinist russia, hitler might not have felt able to invade poland, setting off wwii.
if we are judging the soviets actions in wwii let's look at the whole picture.
you do want to be accurate right? or is your goal to glorify communism?
Yea it ain't nukes!Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded,
The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.
The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.
what do you think of a nation that only turned on their allies the nazis, when the nazis invaded their country?
Not my problem.
I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war
While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets
if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.
the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.
who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.
that might have prevented the holocaust.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.
The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.
the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.
and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.
Nuclear war is your answer?
Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?
the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.
in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?
the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,
shows that you are an anti-America pos.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.
funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.
thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....
yeah, no, that would not happen.
soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.
lol!!! thousand bomber raids is limited retaliation?!
View attachment 376446
Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary
More RW revisionist history
The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.
We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.
Panzer Lehr, 12th SS, 9th SS and 10thSS were far from 2nd tier troops. Michael Wittman, the most successful tank commander in the world, was certainly not a 2nd tier soldier.
The problem you have dumbwinger, is all you know is Howard zinn revisionist bullshit while there are people here who have studied it seriously, for years.
Like me.
".......Soviets managed to lose more people than the entire rest of the world combined".The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Do you have a valid historical link to verify that?
Sounds like propaganda
Yes, there are multiple sources for it. Both Russian and German. I suggest you crack open a book.
If that is the case......Show me
Telling others to prove your point for you is usually an indication you don’t have a point.
The reports are in these things called books. You should read one. Or, use your tiny little head to try and figure out how the Soviets managed to lose more people than the entire rest of the world combined.
The Germans simply didn't have, and frankly NEVER had the supplies to come even close to killing that many people.
Simple logistics tells us that.
Don't be silly your figures are way out, just off the top of my head I know the soviets lost in the region of 22 million, the entire war cost over 50 million.
the deal we got was a crap deal. fdr deserves no credit for it. he should never had run for that fourth term.
How was it a crap deal when FDR got Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying for four years?
We saved Western Europe with minimal casualties. The Soviets got Eastern Europe in return for tens of millions of casualties.
fdr had nothing to do with that. that was all hitler. he invaded stalinist russia and forced them to fight.
until that, stalin was happy to have peace and trade and hugs with nazi germany.
yes, we saved western europe with minimal casualties. and set up the next big conflict as we did it.
short term thinking.
The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.
1.An interesting and significant month, August.
August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.
Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th centurywww.moreorless.net.au
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.
Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Brave? No, not really. They were going to be shot either way. They just hoped the death by the Germans would be quicker.
Were there Soviet soldiers who were brave? Absolutely. But to declare that everyone was brave is a lie. A lie based on propaganda.
So you go to the other pathetic extreme to excuse this kind of disrespect...
This is just rubbish for the arrogant who have no memory of war on their soil.
They fought BRAVELY AS A NATION, no need to split hairs, have some basic man's honor.
Where does this need to overcompensate so extremely come from?
the "other extreme" would be to claim that none of them were brave.
westhall is being quite nuanced. and honest.
the need for this, comes from having to prevent people like rw, from glorifying communism, which is just as bad as nazism.
See you've totally ignored my question on Holocaust denial? Fine.in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
I can’t believe what a callous killer you are. You would rather nuke millions of people rather than have them live under communism for 45 years.
Hirohito saw the devastation of the bomb and quickly agreed to surrender. What makes you think Hitler would do the same?
Hitler already made it clear he was willing to fight to the last man to save his Nazi regime. He allowed the Soviets and US to slaughter German citizens even though it was obvious he had lost the war.
What makes you think a nuclear attack would have changed his mind?
change his mind or vaporize it, either way, the war would have ended, and western europe and eastern europe would have been liberated, like you said could not happen without stalin.
so, you're wrong.
your whining about the deaths is stupid, as the death toll in stopping the nazis would be, quite likely less, in that scenario, and certainly not more.
General Patton knew what the Bolsheviks were, and voiced his opinion loudly......that's why Stalin's BFF, Roosevelt, had him benched.
Patton saw the inevitability of a conflict with the Russians.
"It is a conflict that Patton believes will be fought soon. The Russians are moving to forcibly spread communism throughout the world, and Patton knows it. "They are a scurvy race and simply savages," he writes of the Russians in his journal. "We could beat the hell out of them."
"Patton," By Martin Blumenson, Kevin M. Hymel, p. 84
Can you imagine the chagrin in the Soviet-occupied Roosevelt administration???
The Red Army is relentless in its quest to control as much of Europe as possible, with Stalin taking full advantage of Dwight Eisenhower's timidity.The Russians are seizing more land, and more people are coming under their occupation.
Patton is incensed. "You cannot lay down with a diseased jackal," he recently insisted to a group of journalists."Neither can we ever do business with the Russians."
When Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson visited the Third Army, Patton openly lobbied for at least 30 percent of all American troops to remain in w:st="on">Europe, "Keeping our forces intact. Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to these people.
This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans but have lost the war."
Even Patton's nemesis, British field marshal Montgomery, agrees: when accepting the surrender of German soldiers, he ordered his troops to stack the Wehrmacht rifles in such a way that they could easily be redistributed should the Germans and British need to defend themselves against a Russian advance."
Yet the Harvard-educated undersecretary Patterson thinks Patton is delusional. He advises Eisenhower, army chief of staff Gen. George C. Marshall, and President Harry Truman toclass=apple-converted-space> continue to view the Russians benevolently.class=apple-converted-space>
In time, of course, Patton's predictions will come true, and the world will have to live with the consequences of American gullibility
"Killing Patton," O'Reilly and Dugard, p. 259-260
Of course, Marshall, Hopkins, et al openly wanted the Soviets to control Europe....and said so.
we americans tend to short term thinking. we were facing the nazis and we were happy to have the russians fighting them too.
but the cost, ,was very, very high. half of europe and a new war, starting immediately after.
Not to mention the resultant neo-Marxism that infects our society and major party.
Don't make sense a Zionist denying the Holocaust but I'll put you down as a first I've come across, but then to be fair, not a lot you do say makes much sense.
Munich Agreement, (September 30, 1938), settlement reached by Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy that permitted German annexation of the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia.
The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.
1.An interesting and significant month, August.
August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.
Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.
Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Brave? No, not really. They were going to be shot either way. They just hoped the death by the Germans would be quicker.
Were there Soviet soldiers who were brave? Absolutely. But to declare that everyone was brave is a lie. A lie based on propaganda.
So you go to the other pathetic extreme to excuse this kind of disrespect...
This is just rubbish for the arrogant who have no memory of war on their soil.
They fought BRAVELY AS A NATION, no need to split hairs, have some basic man's honor.
Where does this need to overcompensate so extremely come from?
Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded,
The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.
The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.
what do you think of a nation that only turned on their allies the nazis, when the nazis invaded their country?
Not my problem.
I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war
While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets
if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.
the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.
who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.
that might have prevented the holocaust.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.
The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.
the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.
and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.
Nuclear war is your answer?
Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?
the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.
in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?
the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,
shows that you are an anti-America pos.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.
funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.
thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....
yeah, no, that would not happen.
soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.
Stalin BEGGED FDR to open a second front starting in 1942. Instead, FDR held off invasion till June 1944. In that time, Stalin killed millions of German troops and sacrificed tens of millions of his own people.the deal we got was a crap deal. fdr deserves no credit for it. he should never had run for that fourth term.
How was it a crap deal when FDR got Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying for four years?
We saved Western Europe with minimal casualties. The Soviets got Eastern Europe in return for tens of millions of casualties.
fdr had nothing to do with that. that was all hitler. he invaded stalinist russia and forced them to fight.
until that, stalin was happy to have peace and trade and hugs with nazi germany.
yes, we saved western europe with minimal casualties. and set up the next big conflict as we did it.
short term thinking.
Good deal for FDR, bad deal for Stalin.
What “next big conflict” are you talking about?
The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.
1.An interesting and significant month, August.
August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.
Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.
Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Brave? No, not really. They were going to be shot either way. They just hoped the death by the Germans would be quicker.
Were there Soviet soldiers who were brave? Absolutely. But to declare that everyone was brave is a lie. A lie based on propaganda.
So you go to the other pathetic extreme to excuse this kind of disrespect...
This is just rubbish for the arrogant who have no memory of war on their soil.
They fought BRAVELY AS A NATION, no need to split hairs, have some basic man's honor.
Where does this need to overcompensate so extremely come from?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Stalin BEGGED FDR to open a second front starting in 1942. Instead, FDR held off invasion till June 1944. In that time, Stalin killed millions of German troops and sacrificed tens of millions of his own people.the deal we got was a crap deal. fdr deserves no credit for it. he should never had run for that fourth term.
How was it a crap deal when FDR got Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying for four years?
We saved Western Europe with minimal casualties. The Soviets got Eastern Europe in return for tens of millions of casualties.
fdr had nothing to do with that. that was all hitler. he invaded stalinist russia and forced them to fight.
until that, stalin was happy to have peace and trade and hugs with nazi germany.
yes, we saved western europe with minimal casualties. and set up the next big conflict as we did it.
short term thinking.
Good deal for FDR, bad deal for Stalin.
What “next big conflict” are you talking about?
Yea it ain't nukes!Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded,
The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.
The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.
what do you think of a nation that only turned on their allies the nazis, when the nazis invaded their country?
Not my problem.
I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war
While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets
if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.
the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.
who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.
that might have prevented the holocaust.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.
The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.
the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.
and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.
Nuclear war is your answer?
Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?
the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.
in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?
the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,
shows that you are an anti-America pos.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.
funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.
thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....
yeah, no, that would not happen.
soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.
lol!!! thousand bomber raids is limited retaliation?!
View attachment 376446
Yea it ain't nukes!Yes we'd wage conventional war on them, London was lit up like the suns surface by them and so limited retaliation fine, but nuclear weapons on Europeans? Na a step far too far.The Germans voted Hitler into power. The Japanese folk of Hiroshima, Nagasaki never had a say in their governments war. Yet what ever is said the allies would have never 'nuked' Berlin.It is not a glorification of Communism but an acknowledgement that our Soviet allies did most of the fighting and dying to defeat the Nazis.There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded,
The Soviets bore most of the burden fighting the Nazis. While we waited two and a half years to finally launch D Day, the Soviets had already been fighting three years.
The Soviets destroyed most of the German Army and inflicted most of the casualties. The Battles of Stalingrad, Leningrad, Moscow, Kursk all exceeded our D Day and Battle of the Bulge.
what do you think of a nation that only turned on their allies the nazis, when the nazis invaded their country?
Not my problem.
I am only commenting on the role the Soviets played in defeating the Nazis. They bore most of the burden and won most of the war
While we invaded Normandy, most of the German Army was dedicated to fighting the Soviets
if your goal is to glorify the commies, which it seems to be your goal, then examining the context of their fighting, is your problem.
the actions of the soviet union were a big part of the whole set up and start of wwii.
who knows, if hitler could not have been reassured by stalin, that his eastern front was secure, thanks to his alliance with the soviets, he might never have been able to pull the trigger and start wwii.
that might have prevented the holocaust.
Hitler outplayed Stalin with a fake alliance when it suited him. Stalin paid by almost losing his country.
The fact is, if Hitler and beaten the Soviets, we would never have regained Western Europe. The US would not have sacrificed the million lives it would take to liberate Western Europe.
the world paid, by having to fight wwii, and the holocaust. stalin having a hard job for a few years, was not much payment for his sins.
and we would have liberated all of europe. come 1945, we would have nuked the shit out of germany and that would have been that.
Nuclear war is your answer?
Killing tens of millions of people is preferable to Eastern Europe living under communism for 45 years?
the nuking of Japan killed at most 260,000.
in the scale of wwii, a similar nuking of Germany would have been completely acceptable to any reasonable person.
and yes, that would be far preferable to eastern europe not living under communism for 45 years, not to mention avoiding the terrible cost of the Cold War.
how many people do you think the fucking russian army killed as they rolled over eastern europe?
the way you give anyone not an American a pass for everything, while holding America to account for everything,
shows that you are an anti-America pos.
One of the reasons (there were many) racism! They are too much like us. Jabs on the other hand na not remotely.
funny, that wacism never stopped us from bombing the shit out of them in real life. we hit them with everything we had. night and day.
thousand bomber raids. on cites. and we would not use nukes, on them because suddenly we would start thinking of them as our "white brothers" because, ....
yeah, no, that would not happen.
soviets fall, come 1946 berlin is a glowing parking lot.
lol!!! thousand bomber raids is limited retaliation?!
View attachment 376446
So the were allies!Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary
More RW revisionist history
The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.
We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.
of course, without the alliance between nazi germany and stalinist russia, hitler might not have felt able to invade poland, setting off wwii.
if we are judging the soviets actions in wwii let's look at the whole picture.
you do want to be accurate right? or is your goal to glorify communism?
View attachment 376447
Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23, 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Poland Campaign. In the center is Major General Heinz Guderian; and on the right is Brigadier General Semyon Krivoshein.
the deal we got was a crap deal. fdr deserves no credit for it. he should never had run for that fourth term.
How was it a crap deal when FDR got Stalin to do most of the fighting and dying for four years?
We saved Western Europe with minimal casualties. The Soviets got Eastern Europe in return for tens of millions of casualties.
fdr had nothing to do with that. that was all hitler. he invaded stalinist russia and forced them to fight.
until that, stalin was happy to have peace and trade and hugs with nazi germany.
yes, we saved western europe with minimal casualties. and set up the next big conflict as we did it.
short term thinking.
FDR was fine with Hitler taking other countries. He never met a dictator he didn't like.
Munich Agreement, (September 30, 1938), settlement reached by Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy that permitted German annexation of the Sudetenland in western Czechoslovakia. After his success in absorbing Austria into Germany proper in March 1938, Adolf Hitler looked covetously at Czechoslovakia, Munich Agreement | Definition, Summary, & Significance
At the Munich conference where Europe sold out Czechoslovakia, even though France had a treaty to go to war to preserve Czechoslovakia…..Chamberlain was about to appease Hitler….and FDR sent this message to Chamberlain:
MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference
MUNICH MESSAGE FROM U.S. BARED; Roosevelt Sent Encouraging 'Good Man' to Chamberlain Day Before Conference (Published 1955)
Documents on US foreign relations in '38, pub by State Dept, include P Gilbert rept on Anschluss, noting strong Austrian support for movemobile.nytimes.com
"Munich." The lesson of appeasement—that giving in to aggression just invites more aggression—has calcified into dogma. Neville Chamberlain's name has become code for a weak-kneed, caviling politician, just as Winston Churchill has become the beau ideal of indomitable leadership.
When Chamberlain first announced, after returning from signing his deal with Hitler at Munich in 1938, that "peace is at hand," FDR sent Chamberlain a telegram: "Good man," it said. "I am not a bit upset over the final result," FDR wrote the U.S. ambassador to Italy. When Hitler began to chew up the rest of Europe in 1939, FDR temporized and maneuvered to build political support for intervention among his decidedly isolationist countrymen. Indeed, the United States did not declare war on Germany until Germany declared war on the United States in December 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor." Presidents and the Mythology of Munich
The war propaganda in support of the Marxists has never abated, and has led America to a precipice. Now, the truth.
1.An interesting and significant month, August.
August 20–25, 1944
Allied troops reach Paris. On August 25, Free French forces, supported by Allied troops, enter the French capital. By September, the Allies reach the German border; by December, virtually all of France, most of Belgium, and part of the southern Netherlands are liberated. World War II: Timeline.
Did you see any mention of Soviet troops there?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
Most of what You write is well researched and I like reading it,
but this is just a bunch disgraceful rubbish.
Yes the Russians were shooting their own not to retreat,
but the Russians, common Soviet folk fought HEROICALLY!
It's beyond disrespectful to present the cause of their death like that,
no better than the vulgar leftist one-sided propaganda.
The Soviets would round up a village, march them at gunpoint to a battlefield, and make them run at german machinegun nests to run them out of bullets.
Brave? No, not really. They were going to be shot either way. They just hoped the death by the Germans would be quicker.
Were there Soviet soldiers who were brave? Absolutely. But to declare that everyone was brave is a lie. A lie based on propaganda.
So you go to the other pathetic extreme to excuse this kind of disrespect...
This is just rubbish for the arrogant who have no memory of war on their soil.
They fought BRAVELY AS A NATION, no need to split hairs, have some basic man's honor.
Where does this need to overcompensate so extremely come from?
2. Government school propaganda provides two beliefs about the Soviets in WWII.
a. That they deserve gratitude and honor for their valiant efforts and great loses in the war
b. U.S. war propaganda had painted pipesmoking "Uncle Joe Stalin" as a friendly fellow, and the liberal propaganda left people to thinking of Communist Party members as lovable idealists.
Really???
There is no honor or credit due to the Soviet Union because they lost 20 million in the war. The glorification of the role that the Soviets played in WWII is unfounded, and almost entirely due to the neo-Marxist influence in our society due to Democrats/Liberals/Progressives doing public relations for them, as they share the same values and aims.
First: most of the Soviet loses were their troops killed by Stalin’s own forces. One reason they lost 20 million, while we lost 415,000 was due to the value that America placed on human life, and the lack of same interest by Bolsheviks: they don’t care about human life, a characteristic absorbed and propounded by the current Democrat Party.
3. "Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin"
Major Soviet Paper Says 20 Million Died As Victims of Stalin
And.....
World War II left over 27 million Soviet citizens dead....but only a fraction of them were killed by the Germans. Yet throughout the West. 'war crimes' is a phrase only attacked to the Nazis. When the Red Army marched, an NKVD army marched behind, with its own tanks, machine guns, firing forward....never allowing retreat. More than a million Soviet citizens joined the Nazis. Ask yourself this: why was it that the USSR, of all the Allies, had provided the enemy with thousands of recruits? Nearly one million Russian and other anti-Soviet men joined the enemy of their Soviet Army. "The Secret Betrayal" by Nikolai Tolstoy, p. 19-20.
And.....
"In 1945 Zhukov is reported to have said to US General Dwight D. Eisenhower, "If we come to a minefield, our infantry attacks exactly as it were not there." The shear weight of numbers eventually drove the Germans back, along with the Soviet leadership's determination not to relent, whatever the cost."
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Website no longer available | Heroes and killers of the 20th century
Tom Clancy has a hero combat soldier exclaim his opinion about the thugs who ran the Soviet Union, the communists:
"Misha waved his hand, looking in annoyance at the way it shook. "I have never had much respect for the chekisti. When I was leading my men, they were there-behind us. They were very efficient at shooting prisoners-prisoners that real soldiers had taken. They were also rather good at murdering people who'd been forced to retreat. I even remember one case where a chekist lieutenant took command of a tank troop and led it into a fucking swamp. At least the Germans I killed were men, fighting men. I hated them, but I could respect them for the soldiers they were. Your kind, on the other hand… perhaps we simple soldiers never really understood who the enemy was. Sometimes I wonder who has killed more Russians, the Germans-or people like you?" “The Cardinal of the Kremlin,”p. 383
So those ‘great loses’ were not at the hands of the Germans, they were by their own leaders. Someone should have told Roosevelt.
Oh…wait….they did!
Love is blind.
You see the world in black and white.
I'm not a product of Your American school systems.
You should AT LEAST get out there and try communicate with Russian veterans.
But unfortunately too late,
arrogance will prevail.
That's why in spite bringing the USSR down,
the Soviet ideology won in America.
So the were allies!Did we need the Soviets to bleed them? Nope. It's nice that they did, but it wasn't necessary
More RW revisionist history
The Soviets did 90 percent of the fighting and dying. We would not have conquered Western Europe without the Soviets tying up most of the German Armies and resources.
We fought against second tier troops and defeated them mostly because they lacked the fuel to maneuver effectively. Germany allocated most of their Divisions to fighting the Soviets.
Allowing us to invade France and the west with comparatively minimal losses.
of course, without the alliance between nazi germany and stalinist russia, hitler might not have felt able to invade poland, setting off wwii.
if we are judging the soviets actions in wwii let's look at the whole picture.
you do want to be accurate right? or is your goal to glorify communism?
View attachment 376447
Common parade of German Wehrmacht and Soviet Red Army on September 23, 1939 in Brest, Eastern Poland at the end of the Poland Campaign. In the center is Major General Heinz Guderian; and on the right is Brigadier General Semyon Krivoshein.
In view of Hitlers well broadcast ambitions laid out in Mein Kampf. lebensraum. 'living space.' His hatred for Bolshevism, his massive arms build up. His entry into Czechoslovakia. I'm not surprised
the Soviets made a pact with him because they new the inevitable would soon come and needed time. Which he gave them initially.
