627
On Warrior Ethos
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2026
627 points (98.9% liked)
tumblr
6350 readers
122 users here now
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
The post you're replying doesn't claim the Allies killed more, less or whatever than the USSR. It's about the importance of holding territory vs. killing. Did you just jump into this because you wanted to point out the outsized effort the USSR made in defeating the Nazis?
What territory? The Allies were only able to swoop in and capture the West of Europe because the Nazis threw everything at the Soviets and lost.
And that only happened because the US provided basically everything to the Soviets under Lend-Lease.
Without American equipment, the Soviets were getting absolutely slaughtered.
Their infrastructure was collapsed, they were out of equipment and couldn’t produce more. The US provided tanks, guns, bullets, clothes, food, and even railway to them to keep them afloat and hold off the Nazis while they fought the Western Front.
Without Lend-Lease, the Soviets stood exactly zero chance.
Lend Lease supplied 10% of the Soviets supplies tops. This is such gigantic hypercope.
Nobody says it did not help, but you are exaggerating the role of the US into infinity.
Exactly like how the US propaganda tried to rewrite history after the fact.
Stalin and Kruschev both openly stated that without the US lend lease, the Soviets would have lost.
That’s not cope. That’s the Soviets themselves.
I mean, just reread the comment.
The allies killed a whole bunch in Tokyo and Dresden, et al., but those are mostly citizens so... 😬
And the soviets, they did this all on their own? With their own local built equipment, arms and ammunition? All of their own intelligence? Very impressive if true.
Far less impressive if not.
Mostly, yes, the West was only busy trying to steal German oil colonies in Africa instead of actually fighting the Nazis.
Not to liberate the people of course but to colonize the land themselves and steal the oil for themselves.
America only swooped in after the Nazis had already been defeated at Stalingrad, and the Soviets were at the point of taking over all of Europe.
And, let me guess, after that, the trees in Moscow grew rubles and Stalin himself sculpted the sun?
After that NATO integrated many top Nazi leaders directly into leadership roles and put a Nazi official at the top of NATO not long after WW2 was over.
And NATO was created because a bunch of allied countries were bored, with nothing to do and had too much money on their hands?
No to subjegate their colonies and steal their oil. And now deliver weapons to Israel so it can commit genocide.
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
To be fair, they had to defend their homeland from a ground invasion. In winter. While Leningrad was being sieged and blockaded. Many Soviet soldiers starved because of that.
All while being present on other fronts.
Yes. Because Soviets fought instead of surrendering.
So did the British? What's your point?
Did they have good leadership? I hear stories about how soldiers had to fight without enough guns or ammo, or they'd be shot by their commanders.
They did not have Christmas parties with the Nazis unlike the Allies. Wonder why.
Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Also the Soviets literally invaded Poland opposite of Germany in '39.
Back to my question about actual battlefield behavior, though: did the Soviet commanders shoot their own troops and send them into fights without enough guns and ammo?
Yes, as did every other country during the war. Some more than others, but there wasn't a single country in WWII where officers did not shoot their own soldiers for insubordination.
No, this is common propaganda pushed by COD and Enemy at the Gates, based on a single officer's report from the Battle of Stalingrad that they did not have enough guns to equip his troops. Conveniently, the second half of the officers report is usually left out, where he states that he is diverting his troop ship to a supply depot to rearm before heading into combat.
I see you know nothing about history except spouting propaganda so no need to discuss further. You prefer surrender to the Nazis and joining them like Europe did of course.
My family left behind died in the resistance. Surrender isn't an option against fascism, imo.
Europe as a whole resisted the spread of Nazis in WW2, and didn't join them like you're implying. Many died fighting the Axis powers that took over part of Europe. The Axis powers that were also in Europe were defeated.
Then why are you on here criticizing the USSR for doing exactly that?
Am I?
Wasn't that WW1
Look everyone, it's one of the guys from the meme.