11 ms·
> The Red Army was indeed a savior. Many who ended up in the soviet sphere of influence would beg to differ.
by def_true_false 9y ago
> The Red Army was indeed a savior.
Many who ended up in the soviet sphere of influence would beg to differ.
- simonh 9y agoOh come on, that post was very clearly made knowingly within that context.
- rbanffy 9y agoIt's not like there were better alternatives at the time.
- bobthechef 9y agoThat's fallacious thinking. Even if we assumes that nothing could be done to stop the Soviets (and that is debatable: some have argued that the US was fully capable of pushing back against Soviet domination in the eastern Bloc, but instead caved in to Soviet demands), the result was a nasty occupation by the Soviets. "No alternative" does not mean it wasn't objectively bad. We're not talking about running out of your favorite ice cream topping here and having to compromise for your second favorite topping.
- rbanffy 9y agoWould the Allies stand a chance if the Soviets didn't help? Would the Allies stand a chance if the Soviets allied with the Axis?
- lostlogin 9y agoYes and then no (or not without US help). The British empire outproduced, manufactured, mined etc the Germans for basically the entire war. The question is more about why it took so long for the allies to get the upper hand. The idea of ‘the plucky underdog’ is a myth, Britain was very much a superpower with a massive, resource rich empire behind it. https://www.amazon.de/Britains-War-Machine-Weapons-Resources/dp/0141026103 https://www.amazon.de/Britains-War-Machine-Weapons-Resources...