Hahaha they really have to actively be looking to get offended by anything a communist or simply someone with an accurate understanding of history says. That person didn’t even deny that allies contributed, they’re just stating the fact that the USSR liberated most of Nazi occupied Europe and defeated fascism. That’s not controversial, pick something else to get irrationally angry about.
…they’re just stating the fact that the USSR liberated most of Nazi occupied Europe and defeated fascism.
This is where the liberals use this meme:
tfw u build schools, apartments and hospitals that are still standing to this day despite lack of maintenance, have pretty progressive laws for the time, massively improve living standards only for some dumbass on the internet to compare you to the Nazis.
Look, the PRL had a lot of issues (polish comrades know this damn well), but holy fucking shit man you cannot compare it to German-occupied Poland, where there were Ghettos everywhere and fucking concentration camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, etc.).
Just like Parenti said, where were the half-starved masses when socialism fell? Where were the countless political prisoners we were told about?
I do think lend lease was quite important to the Soviet victory (probably inevitable without it but it saved a shit ton of lives with food delivery which is very good and should be acknowledged and lauded) however it was up to the Soviets to effectively use said supplies so it’s still not the argumentative coup these NATO brains think it is.
Lend lease was something around 4% of total Soviet war materials used, it only started to arrive in noticeable amounts in 1943, and a lot of arms send were more or less obsolete crap like the M3 Lee tanks or Airacobra fighters. It did have some effects like large number of US trucks freed some Soviet manufacturing to produce something else or when abovementioned obsolete crap was issued to second line troops allowing for more concentration of good equipment, but overall it was FAR from the importance murican propaganda makes you believe it had.
Thanks for bringing up the raw figures, I always think its like 10% but thats still a wild overestimate. That’s why I mentioned things like food or the trucks because I do remember reading that those were quite helpful and they benefitted the civilian population as well as the Red Army. American propaganda would have you believing that Sherman tanks with red stars were rolling through Berlin with the amount of “but Lend-Lease!” that they toss about.
It’s funny that American propaganda is so nazi apologist they’d have you believe the Sherman was a shitty tank compared to “zee über panzer.” The Sherman was a dependable tank with some flaws and oversights but it still had some good features and it could be upgraded to make it more competitive. That’s about the best you can hope for when you’re jumping into a giant war with a debut design.
When your anticommunist lobotomy is so severe you forget the Soviets were one of the Allies
Wait until you hear the wild shit that they say the Soviets were actually in the axis pact but were betrayed
I’ve heard that plenty. I’ve never seen someone exclude the Soviets from the Allies. There’s the perfectly good “Western Allies” they could use too if they wanted to exclude the Soviets and Chinese.
Isn’t that kinda somewhat true though? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a pact to split Poland and also a non aggression pact so Hitler could focus on the western front and Stalin had time to build up an army and economy. The pact was broken by Hitler invading the USSR. They were never allied but they had a pact which Germany broke.
The implication is that the Soviets wanted to go along with Hitler and the Nazis, but Hitler backstabbed them, not the Soviets biding time for an eventual confrontation.
Isn’t that kinda somewhat true though?
Not entirely true. No more so than what the western powers had brokered as well.
The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a pact to split Poland
Wrong. Explaining this would require both a history lesson stemming from the Russian civil war and a lesson on international law with regards to what happens to a country when a government flees its country.
In very reductive and simplified terms, when the polish government abandoned Poland, the country formally ceased to exist and the land itself was formally in a state of anarchy.
With that in mind would it make sense to allow nazi Germany to March all the way to the Soviet borders in the name of “restoring order” to the entirety of the former polish republics lands?
Obviously the answer is no and you move forward to protect the workers and peasants of the ungoverned lands from being pillaged by the fascists.
Now let’s add in the historical aspect. In 1921, during the Russian civil war, The Treaty of Riga was brokered between the Soviet Russia and Ukraine with the soon-to-be-declared second Polish Republic that declared peace between the countries with the caveat that the Soviets surrender western Belarus and western Ukraine to the Polish government. This is why when you look at maps of poland between the periods of the Second to Fourth republics you see large shifts in borders.
Back to the fall of the Second republic, when examining the movements of the Soviet Union into the no-mans-land of the former republic one will see that the lands the Soviets asserted stewardship over were the lands that were surrendered during the Treaty of Riga in addition to some formally Polish lands that they rushed to claim before the nazis could claim themselves.
So in summary, no there was no “secret pact to divide poland”. There are real and existing reasons why it occured that both accurately and reasonably explain why the historical event happened. The myth of the “secret pact” is perpetuated by the western powers during the cold war so as to obfuscate the historical truth of the issue while both undermining the historically heroic role the Soviet Union played during the second world War and portraying the lie that fascism and communism are somehow equivalent.
and also a non aggression pact so Hitler could focus on the western front and Stalin had time to build up an army and economy.
Partially true partially false. The pact was created before a “western front” existed. It was fundamentally created due to the western powers policy of “appeasement” that pushed Hitler eastward towards conflict with the Soviet Union. This policy of appeasement culminated in allowing fascist Germany and its future allies - and poland - to carve up Czechoslovakia amongst themselves like hyenas as granted to them by the British and the French in the Munich Agreement. In the period leading up to the Munich agreement the Soviet Union was pursuing a policy of collective security and was lobbying all the countries around nazi Germany to join an anti-fascist defensive Treaty.
The lobbying for collective security failed with the western powers flat out rejecting any policy to contain nazi germany, thus leaving the Soviet Union no choice but to negotiate a non-agression pact.
The pact was broken by Hitler invading the USSR. They were never allied but they had a pact which Germany broke.
This is true.
I think they’re trying to say that the allies as a collective defeated fascism, not just the USSR, even though only one side of the allies funneled a bunch of Nazi and Japanese war criminals to the sphere to continue their cartoonishly evil agendas.
I like how this one dipshit glosses over the fact that the USSR put the first artificial satellite into orbit and did the first manned spaceflight
the USSR was in the allies how are these people so short circuited
least deserving of westoid
