36
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 2 points 5 days ago

In contrast to the usa, russia always sucked at marketing.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Yes, let's continue this. Do you have any other material?

[-] [email protected] 55 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It wassn't any single country. It was the Allies.

What shit-tier propaganda is this?

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

Yeah I always thought, you know... We beat him. As in together.

[-] [email protected] 32 points 1 week ago

What kind of Russian propaganda is this? None of the allies could win alone

Sees poster is from lemmy.ml

Well, that explains it

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago

Russian propaganda?

The chest-beating confidence of people chiming in on Internet is appalling to me. Stop presuming you know more than other people and READ MORE BOOKS.

The strain of American Exceptionalism in the typical American historical outlook is depressing to me.

There were single battles on the Eastern Front which resulted in more casualties than the United States suffered throughout the entire war across all fronts. Look it up: Leningrad, Stalingrad, Kharkov...

The United States first seriously engaged with German forces in Tunisia in 1943. By that point, the USSR had been fighting with Germany on a massive scale for a year and a half. That was after the Battle of Stalingrad, arguably the most significant turning point in the entire war.

The Germans deployed roughly 50 divisions on the Western Front. Roughly 150 divisions were on the Eastern Front.

The United States contributed materiel and strategic bombing, but did not do the lion's share of the fighting, killing, or dying.

[-] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago

All this statistics on manpower yet you're completely ignoring all of the shipments of food and materials the US sent to the USSR under lend-lease. The USSR would have starved and run even more extreme shortages on tanks and aircraft without US contributions.

Stop presuming you know more than other people and READ MORE BOOKS.

I have read books om the Eastern front, from the Russian perspective. They tend to dismiss anything not Russian as a contribution to the war. That goes anywhere from claiming US materials did little tp saying that Ukrainians and Belarusians were incompetent, even though their soldiers, territory, qnd civilians bore the brunt of the fighting.

Let's also not forget that the reason the USSR was able to move their Siberian divisions to defend Moscow from Germany is because they found out that Japan wasn't planning on attacking the USSR - they were planning to attack Pearl Harbor instead. If Japan had decided to attack the USSR instead, they wouldn't have fresh winter-hardened troops to break the seige of Moscow, and would likely have to reroute divisions to reinforce a front line against the Japanese. And let's not forget that the US was the backbone (though not the only member of the allies) in the fight against the Japanese Navy.

Let's also not forget that a significant factor in the Germans advancing so quickly in Operation Barbarossa is because a lot of people in Ukraine hated the Russians because of the Holodomor. And the USSR didn't win any favors with Poles when they stabbed Poland in the back by partitioning it with Germany.

Reread my earlier comment. I never said the US won the war on it's own. I said the Allies won together, and that none of the members of the alliance could have won without the others.

But maybe that doesn't convince you. If not, I don't care.

Stop presuming you know more than other people and READ MORE BOOKS.

I recommend you take your own advice. Pick up a book other than "Russia at War 1941-1945". Preferrably something that isn't full of anti-Ukrainian and anti-Belarusian propaganda.

[-] [email protected] 25 points 1 week ago

What kind of Russian propaganda is this? None of the allies could win alone

This is 100% correct. Also, anybody who actually knows the history in detail knows that America concentrated most of their fighting forces in the Pacific theatre and served more as support in the European theatre.

load more comments (113 replies)
[-] [email protected] 29 points 1 week ago

Yep, overall the Soviets paid by far the largest price, and were responsible for ~85% of Nazi deaths. This should be unsurprising for anyone, though, considering communism and fascism are polar opposites, the former throughly devoted to thr working class and the collectivization of property, the latter thoroughly devoted to violently retaining bourgeois property and killing all who are percived to risk that. Blackshirts and Reds is a good read.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago

The Germans were fucked. They could've stopped the war after winning the battle of France and so long as the British decided to continue fighting they would have won just with the Commonwealth allies. The economic situation for them was apocalyptic. The only thing Germany could hope to achieve by continuing the fight was losing at a later date.

[-] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

US didn't beat the hitler but US is the undisputed winner of the war.

We currently actively pissing away all of them winnings though...

Russian clown regime speed running loss of great power status

China is set up to win by doing nothing

US oligarchy is unable to maintain the empire. Too much grift.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Seeing the Brits consistently polling in the 15% range is amusing. I wonder if the French being the subject of the poll has anything to do with that.

Brits and their Empire were the only ones fighting for the entire duration of the war. They didn't have the capability to liberate mainland Europe alone, but they sure did make everything difficult for the Axis. I've always felt that a peace between the Commonwealth and Axis, as Hitler envisioned, was the most interesting counterfactual to consider. No need for an Altantic Wall, no bombing campaign, no base to invade France from, no African campaign, no naval interference for their shipping or need for a big U-boat fleet, etc. Also dramatically changes the calculus for the Japanese Empire in the Pacific. If the Brits aren't tied up in Europe, then an invasion towards the Indies becomes much less tempting, potentially leading to no Pearl Harbor and the USSR and China standing alone and being pressed from all sides.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

No mention of British intel supporting Hitler and Mussolini in the first place? Wasn't just Hitler who wanted an alliance against the Soviets, that moron Churchill considered it a possibility too!

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2025
36 points (61.5% liked)

History

1297 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/History @ Mander.xyz!



Notice Board



Work in progress...

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.


Similar Communities


Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Plants & Gardening

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Memes

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS