- cross-posted to:
- funny@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- funny@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45833034
You must log in or # to comment.
Communism never defeated fascism because the US was just as fascist as the Nazi were. Hell, the US industrialists like Ford bankrolled the Nazi and US companies like IBM helped with the logistics of murdering the Jews.
The US took in the Nazi after the war and then spread fascism all over the entire world. Their campaign included murdering countless leftists not to mention purging them from the US as well.
Placing the blame on communists is a gross mischaraterization of what happened.
Nothing is more stark than this one, about how the US shaped European public opinion to make it look like they won WW2 and not the soviets:
“Which country actually won the war that defeated the international working class” is some bourgeois slight of hand shit.
“Did you know propaganda??” Meanwhile:
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living. And just as they seem to be occupied with revolutionizing themselves and things, creating something that did not exist before, precisely in such epochs of revolutionary crisis they anxiously conjure up the spirits of the past to their service, borrowing from them names, battle slogans, and costumes in order to present this new scene in world history in time-honored disguise and borrowed language.
What about the lend lease program? It’s my understanding that this was a bigger game changer than most other programs and projects.
Might be pointless posting this in ml…
Lend-Lease was important without a doubt, but it’s often overstated by westerners. The USSR had already survived Moscow, won at Stalingrad, and held at Kursk before Lend-Lease was arriving at scale. It was also not what mainly armed the Red Army; the core weapons were overwhelmingly Soviet-made. Its biggest value was logistics: trucks, food, aluminum, machine tools, communications gear, etc. It made Soviet offensives faster and better supplied. But was far from decisive.
A fair estimate is that Lend-Lease probably shortened the war by something like 12–18 months, which is significant and meant many lives saved. But that is different from saying it was any sort of decisive reason for victory over the Nazis. The decisive factors were without a doubt Soviet industry, Soviet manpower, Soviet battlefield performance, and the Eastern Front destroying the main body of the Wehrmacht.
This is 100% right. The turning point of the eastern front was Stalingrad, 1942, and most of lend-lease aid came after.
After Stalingrad it was clear that the Soviets would not be pushed back, and the nazis were on their heels for the rest of the war (even though it continued to be a slog). That’s also why the US decided to open the western front in 1944: to prevent an inevitable Red Europe.
The soviets might have killed just as many germans without lend-lease, we’ll never know, but with over 75 percent of their trucks, and something like half the fuel being delivered through lend lease, there’s no way they would have made it into Germany. The US also delivered a great deal of food aid with that.
You can believe what you want but I hope you understand that historians do not generally support your idea of what happened. Even American historians of the Eastern Front like David Glantz, argue that without Lend-Lease the USSR still defeats Germany, but later and at greater cost. So again yes, Lend-Lease trucks, food, fuel, rail equipment, aluminum, machine tools, and communications gear were incredibly valuable. They improved Soviet logistics, saved lives, and likely shortened the war by up to a year or more. But that is not the same as saying Lend-Lease was the decisive factor in victory (because it wasn’t).
By the time Lend-Lease really kicked into gear at major scale, the Nazis had already failed at Moscow, been crushed at Stalingrad, and lost the strategic initiative after Kursk. The USSR had also already relocated much of its industry beyond the Urals, outside German reach, and was producing the bulk of its own tanks, artillery, aircraft, ammunition, and small arms. Lend-Lease helped the Red Army advance faster and more efficiently, from 1943 onward, but the claim that the USSR could not have reached Germany without it is just nonsense.
I hate how much the west glazes the Normandy landings as if they were anything more than a logistical feat. The entirety of the Normandy campaign is a drop in the pond compared to anything that happened on the eastern front. I’d argue, if the only thing the allies did was give the Soviets steel and gunpowder, then the Nazis would have been defeated regardless of the western or italian campaigns.
Their barbarous human meatwaves, our brave overwhelming beachstorming force
They hardly even changed tactics.
Remember when fascism beat communism but liberal capitalists said no and bankrolled the communists
Jinkies!
No. Are you talking about something specific that actually happened or are you just saying stuff?
No, not really
Removed by mod
Communists have never been and will never be allied with the Nazis, because the Nazis’ first priority has always been and will always be to crush communism, because fascism is a tool of the capitalist class to keep the working class under its boot.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a CommunistThen they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a SocialistThen they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionistThen they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a JewThen they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for meIt’s amazing how this bullshit just suddenly blinked into existence like two years ago
I guess now there are too many youtube videos calling out your bullshit on the double genocide nazi holocaust denialism so you had to move on?
Removed by mod
Double genocide theory is a form of holocaust denial.
Remember when Communism was allied to the Nazis and invaded Poland with them
Not to mind this is just straight up bullshit. Non aggression pacts are not the same as allying with the Nazis. The non aggression pact was necessary to delay the inevitable long enough to industrialise and build up a force to fight the Nazis largely alone as the western powers had continuously refused to form an anti nazi pact since 1933. The soviets were also the last major power to sign a non aggression pact with the Nazis. The USSR broke the nazi beast took the majority of the casualties and killed the majority of the Nazis.
The USSR spent years trying to build an anti-Nazi alliance. 1933 they proposed collective security at the League of Nations. 1935 they signed mutual defense pacts with France and Czechoslovakia. Spring 1939 they sat in Moscow for months begging Britain and France for a real triple alliance. The West stalled. Refused to guarantee the Baltics. Refused to let the Red Army cross Poland to actually fight Hitler. Poland’s elite, more scared of workers than of Nazis, said no too and instead joined Hitler in attacking Czechoslovakia. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact happened because liberals handed Hitler Eastern Europe rather than work with socialists.
When Soviet troops entered eastern Poland September 17 1939, the Polish state had already collapsed. Government fled to Romania September 15. Warsaw was burning. The army was broken. The lands the USSR moved into? Not Poland proper. Territories Poland had seized and occupied by force in 1919-1921 from Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania. Moving in to secure this land also saved millions from extermination.
Revisionist bullshit.
No, easily investigated historical record.
Removed by mod
Not to mention that was all at the absolute peak of Appeasement. Chamberlain didn’t get to boot until 1940.
What point are you trying to make with that article? I guess I should start by asking if you read it.
Right, right. I sure do remember when they beat fascism all on their own with no help from anybody at all…
The US begrudgingly fought Germany because it wanted to even the scales. Its ideal outcome was for the USSR and Germany to mutually destroy each other so the capitalist West could swoop in and feast on the rubble.
The USSR ended up massively outperforming everyone’s expectations and survived the mass extermination of its civilian population by the Nazis. Which is why after the war the US quickly went back to backing the Nazis, largely preserving their institutions and placing them in positions of power around the globe.
Despite only getting half of what it wanted out of the war, the US was propelled into superpower status in part because it was the only large industrialized nation whose industry hadn’t been obliterated, in another part because of the highly profitable rebuild of Europe, and in the third part because it took Europe’s place as the primary exploiter of the Global South.
The USSR, despite lacking those advantages and despite its 20 million dead, was able to withstand the Cold war for decades, until internal rot and revisionism weakened it enough that the US could undemocratically and violently dismantle it.
No one said they did, dummy.
I wonder how that poll would look today.
Even more wrong, I’d imagine. Almost all the adults who experienced the war firsthand are dead now.
Of course others were huge contributors, the point is that comparatively a lot less credit has been given to the soviet union. Which is unfair given that they suffered the biggest casualties.
Through their own incompetence. Not to mention letting their guard down after signing a treaty saying they wouldn’t attack the Nazis.
