3 ms·

Likewise, most westerners know that the war was mostly between Germany and Soviet Union. The other theatres were conparitively small. Americans may have given

by Gunax 4y ago

Likewise, most westerners know that the war was mostly between Germany and Soviet Union. The other theatres were conparitively small. Americans may have given their steel, but Soviets gave their blood.

JackFr 4y ago
The Soviets enabled the Third Reich by providing facilities to build and train an air force sand a tank corps when Germany was treaty bound not to have one. Additionally, they were happy to partition Poland following the Nazi invasion. Stalin was a criminal and reaped what he sowed.
- the_af 4y ago
  That's some revision of history. The Soviets didn't "enable" the Third Reich, since they knew well enough war with Nazi Germany was inevitable in the long run. Why they cooperated with each other is complex, and all powers back then engaged in some questionable strategies that, in hindsight, backfired. Poland is more complicated than a "partition". It's an inconvenient truth, now, to remember the Soviets did most of the fighting against Nazi Germany.
  - ztrww 4y ago
    It does not change the fact that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939 and through 1940. They cooperated in Poland, signed a treaty to partition eastern Europe and were clearly considered as such when Britain and France were planning their intervention in Finland and bombing the oil fields in Azerbaijan. Yes it was short term alliance of convenience and both sides didn’t really trust each other but it does not change the fact that without material, political and military support from the USSR Germany’s position early in the war would have been much weaker.
    - justsomehnguy 4y ago
      What is your opinion on Munich Agreement then?
    - the_af 4y ago
      > It does not change the fact that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939 and through 1940 That's in my opinion simplistic. They weren't "allies" in the standard sense of the word; they were outmaneuvering each other and gearing for war, which both parties understood was happening eventually. Remember they already had had their bitter proxy war in the Spanish Civil War, where Soviets and Germans had already killed each other. Yes, they cooperated with materiel and military tech; they also had to compromise geopolitically. The situation of both countries more or less required this. And yes -- with hindsight -- this backfired on the Soviets catastrophically. But consider this: in the UK and US, businesses and politicians were at times sympathetic with Nazi Germany, at least before the outbreak of the global war, after which maintaining open sympathies for Germany would have been traitorous. But only the USSR was under actual territorial danger from Nazi Germany, so the compromises to be made were different. The USSR also had in its recent history a civil war where the Western Powers had intervened against them, so they were very wary of who to trust, "surrounded by enemies" so to speak. From Wikipedia: > The establishment of the [Molotov-Ribbentrop] treaty was preceded by Soviet efforts to form a tripartite alliance with Britain and France. Fearing encirclement by hostile powers, the Soviet Union began negotiations with Germany on 22 August, one day after talks broke down with Britain and France, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact was signed the next day. How many people, when claiming Nazi Germany and the USSR were "allies", know that the USSR first tried to form an anti-German pact with Britain and France? And were refused! Not many, I suspect. > [Germany and the USSR] cooperated in Poland, signed a treaty to partition eastern Europe Again, consider that at the time, the UK thought having colonies was acceptable. Churchill, lionized in the West, was a staunch supporter of the British Empire. So yes, it's bad that the USSR tried to partition Eastern Europe (unlike the UK, they were in full paranoid mode, trying to create buffer zones to protect their homeland), but remember some Western powers like the UK and France also believed in partitioning the world according to their needs. Empires were more acceptable back then, it wasn't just the USSR.
- pencilguin 4y ago
  It is essential not to confuse Soviet armed forces with Stalin himself. The former had to fight, with a great handicap, under the latter. People of the countries occupied first by one power and then the other suffered most.

by Gunax 4y ago

JackFr 4y ago

The Soviets enabled the Third Reich by providing facilities to build and train an air force sand a tank corps when Germany was treaty bound not to have one. Additionally, they were happy to partition Poland following the Nazi invasion. Stalin was a criminal and reaped what he sowed.

the_af 4y ago
That's some revision of history. The Soviets didn't "enable" the Third Reich, since they knew well enough war with Nazi Germany was inevitable in the long run. Why they cooperated with each other is complex, and all powers back then engaged in some questionable strategies that, in hindsight, backfired. Poland is more complicated than a "partition". It's an inconvenient truth, now, to remember the Soviets did most of the fighting against Nazi Germany.
- ztrww 4y ago
  It does not change the fact that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939 and through 1940. They cooperated in Poland, signed a treaty to partition eastern Europe and were clearly considered as such when Britain and France were planning their intervention in Finland and bombing the oil fields in Azerbaijan. Yes it was short term alliance of convenience and both sides didn’t really trust each other but it does not change the fact that without material, political and military support from the USSR Germany’s position early in the war would have been much weaker.
  - justsomehnguy 4y ago
    What is your opinion on Munich Agreement then?
  - the_af 4y ago
    > It does not change the fact that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies in 1939 and through 1940 That's in my opinion simplistic. They weren't "allies" in the standard sense of the word; they were outmaneuvering each other and gearing for war, which both parties understood was happening eventually. Remember they already had had their bitter proxy war in the Spanish Civil War, where Soviets and Germans had already killed each other. Yes, they cooperated with materiel and military tech; they also had to compromise geopolitically. The situation of both countries more or less required this. And yes -- with hindsight -- this backfired on the Soviets catastrophically. But consider this: in the UK and US, businesses and politicians were at times sympathetic with Nazi Germany, at least before the outbreak of the global war, after which maintaining open sympathies for Germany would have been traitorous. But only the USSR was under actual territorial danger from Nazi Germany, so the compromises to be made were different. The USSR also had in its recent history a civil war where the Western Powers had intervened against them, so they were very wary of who to trust, "surrounded by enemies" so to speak. From Wikipedia: > The establishment of the [Molotov-Ribbentrop] treaty was preceded by Soviet efforts to form a tripartite alliance with Britain and France. Fearing encirclement by hostile powers, the Soviet Union began negotiations with Germany on 22 August, one day after talks broke down with Britain and France, and the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact was signed the next day. How many people, when claiming Nazi Germany and the USSR were "allies", know that the USSR first tried to form an anti-German pact with Britain and France? And were refused! Not many, I suspect. > [Germany and the USSR] cooperated in Poland, signed a treaty to partition eastern Europe Again, consider that at the time, the UK thought having colonies was acceptable. Churchill, lionized in the West, was a staunch supporter of the British Empire. So yes, it's bad that the USSR tried to partition Eastern Europe (unlike the UK, they were in full paranoid mode, trying to create buffer zones to protect their homeland), but remember some Western powers like the UK and France also believed in partitioning the world according to their needs. Empires were more acceptable back then, it wasn't just the USSR.
pencilguin 4y ago
It is essential not to confuse Soviet armed forces with Stalin himself. The former had to fight, with a great handicap, under the latter. People of the countries occupied first by one power and then the other suffered most.