5 ms·

Soviet Union was an ally, and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, b

Soviet Union was an ally, and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, because Soviet Union was weaker but developing faster.

varispeed 3y ago
No Soviet Union wasn't an ally, comrade. You are spreading Russian propaganda.
- fiso64 3y ago
  Equating the Soviet Union's role to that of Germany during the second world war is certainly uhhh.. one of the takes. It's not as if the US sent tons of food, aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the SU as part of lend-lease.
  - varispeed 3y ago
    The priority was to defeat Hitler and sending Western troops to the East wasn't feasible, so helping Soviet Union with lend-lease was seen as a lesser evil. The idea was then to defeat Soviet Union afterwards. However, the West was too tired fighting and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, the war de facto got frozen.
    - xdennis 3y ago
      > and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, Pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about? Stalin took half of Europe. It confounds me how people think WW2 ended with a success when millions were killed or enslaved as a result of the "victory".
      - varispeed 3y ago
        The point is the west didn't care about Poland, the Baltics and other states that fell under Russia. In their mind it was the "price" to pay for relative stability in the west. The status quo was sealed once Soviet Union has developed their own nuclear weapons using stolen IP. Had this not happened, most likely Stalin would have been pushed back.
- geysersam 3y ago
  You're right, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
- rawTruthHurts 3y ago
  Russia did not exist at the time of WWII.
- tgv 3y ago
  They are usually considered allies in the context of WW2. The Von Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was evil, though, and it doesn't look like the USSR would have attacked Nazi-Germany if they hadn't invaded. So in that sense, it was an ally only out of necessity. IMO the discussion often boils down to definition of words and emotional attachment to those words. I don't think people here disagree on the (most prominent) facts.
- PanopticonMan 3y ago
  It was indeed an ally. In fact, after the war surveys showed French people overwhelmingly credited it with winning WW2. It was decades of american propaganda that reversed that. The western front was already lost. The game was over. Germany won. Britain was pinned back and had no chance of invading France. If the soviets hadn't won at Stalingrad, turned the whole war and then slowly pushed back Germany... it was over. The US would've done absolutely nothing about it. More Russians died at Stalingrad alone than Americans in the entire war. WW2 was, for most of it, just Germany v Russia. That's where all the losses were. Thats where all the fighting was. D-day was only in 1944... what was happening from the french surrender in 1940 until 1944? Who was fighting? Honestly, Americans drinking their own kool-aid is mad to me. This is all basic history and a few hollywood films won't change that. From France 24: "Just after the European fighting ended in May 1945, a poll by the French survey group Ifop found that 57 percent of the French thought Moscow had contributed the most to the war effort, compared with just 20 percent who named the United States. But by the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings by Allied forces in 2004 -- when Russia was represented for the first time, by Putin -- the figures were reversed, with just 20 percent putting the Soviet Union first. Instead, 58 percent lauded the US, even though its total losses of 400,000 in both the European and Pacific theatres were just a small fraction of the dead in the Soviet Union. "In 1945, the great ally was Stalin and the USSR -- their role was absolutely clear for the French," said Stephane Grimaldi, director of the Caen Memorial Museum for World War II in Normandy. "But 50 years later, it's the US that won, for the very simple reason that in the meantime we had the Cold War," he said. Hollywood also helped change perceptions with a string of hit films starting in the 1960s showing brave Americans fighting far from home. "If you look at way it has been portrayed in popular culture, it's all about the battle in France and the Battle of Britain, but World War II was overwhelmingly Germans and Russians killing each other," said Jeremy Shapiro from the European Council on Foreign Relations."
  - osullivj 3y ago
    You're overlooking the war in the Pacific. Hitler hoped that Japan would keep the US busy, and wanted a free hand to attack lend lease shipping. US Atlantic supply was key to keeping the UK and USSR alive and fighting. The UK shipped Churcill tanks via the Arctic convoy. The US sent Shermans, Jeeps and much infra. All key to the eventual victory at Stalingrad.
sofixa 3y ago
> and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union Citation needed. Stalin did things for his own reasons, and he didn't bother explaining them, so where are you getting this from? And if that were the case, why did the Soviet Union export so many crucial things (oil, tungsten, etc.) to Germany up to the very morning of Operation Barbarossa if they knew there will be used against them in the near future? And also, why was the Soviet Union caught off guard with the attack if they were expecting it and had mountains of intelligence showing it was imminent? Also, invading Poland, Finland and the Baltics was certainly a choice by the Soviet Union. Yes, they're responsible for the start of WW2 because not only did they collaborate with Nazi Germany, they also gave Hitler and Germany a stable Eastern Front allowing them to focus on Poland and then Benelux and France. > Soviet Union was an ally Ally of convenience purely and entirely. They needed the other United Nations for the stuff and the other fronts, and the other United Nations needed them against the Germans (let's not forget, Germany lost the war on the Eastern Front). It shows in Soviet intentions and actions against Eastern European nations, like when then set up a puppet Polish government even though in theory they were allied to the actual Polish government in exile.
xdennis 3y ago
> it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity What horrible russian propaganda! The pact was about splitting Europe. That's why Russia invaded Poland[1], the Baltic countries[2], Finland[3], and Romania[4] after signing it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabi...
kgabis 3y ago
It wasn't a necessity. If Russia/Soviet Union was trying to delay the German invasion then they shouldn't have trained German troops and sent natural resources for it's war machine.

varispeed 3y ago

No Soviet Union wasn't an ally, comrade. You are spreading Russian propaganda.

fiso64 3y ago
Equating the Soviet Union's role to that of Germany during the second world war is certainly uhhh.. one of the takes. It's not as if the US sent tons of food, aircraft, and hundreds of thousands of vehicles to the SU as part of lend-lease.
- varispeed 3y ago
  The priority was to defeat Hitler and sending Western troops to the East wasn't feasible, so helping Soviet Union with lend-lease was seen as a lesser evil. The idea was then to defeat Soviet Union afterwards. However, the West was too tired fighting and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, the war de facto got frozen.
  - xdennis 3y ago
    > and since Stalin didn't look to move westwards, Pardon my French, but WTF are you talking about? Stalin took half of Europe. It confounds me how people think WW2 ended with a success when millions were killed or enslaved as a result of the "victory".
    - varispeed 3y ago
      The point is the west didn't care about Poland, the Baltics and other states that fell under Russia. In their mind it was the "price" to pay for relative stability in the west. The status quo was sealed once Soviet Union has developed their own nuclear weapons using stolen IP. Had this not happened, most likely Stalin would have been pushed back.
geysersam 3y ago
You're right, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
rawTruthHurts 3y ago
Russia did not exist at the time of WWII.
tgv 3y ago
They are usually considered allies in the context of WW2. The Von Ribbentrop-Molotov pact was evil, though, and it doesn't look like the USSR would have attacked Nazi-Germany if they hadn't invaded. So in that sense, it was an ally only out of necessity. IMO the discussion often boils down to definition of words and emotional attachment to those words. I don't think people here disagree on the (most prominent) facts.
PanopticonMan 3y ago
It was indeed an ally. In fact, after the war surveys showed French people overwhelmingly credited it with winning WW2. It was decades of american propaganda that reversed that. The western front was already lost. The game was over. Germany won. Britain was pinned back and had no chance of invading France. If the soviets hadn't won at Stalingrad, turned the whole war and then slowly pushed back Germany... it was over. The US would've done absolutely nothing about it. More Russians died at Stalingrad alone than Americans in the entire war. WW2 was, for most of it, just Germany v Russia. That's where all the losses were. Thats where all the fighting was. D-day was only in 1944... what was happening from the french surrender in 1940 until 1944? Who was fighting? Honestly, Americans drinking their own kool-aid is mad to me. This is all basic history and a few hollywood films won't change that. From France 24: "Just after the European fighting ended in May 1945, a poll by the French survey group Ifop found that 57 percent of the French thought Moscow had contributed the most to the war effort, compared with just 20 percent who named the United States. But by the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings by Allied forces in 2004 -- when Russia was represented for the first time, by Putin -- the figures were reversed, with just 20 percent putting the Soviet Union first. Instead, 58 percent lauded the US, even though its total losses of 400,000 in both the European and Pacific theatres were just a small fraction of the dead in the Soviet Union. "In 1945, the great ally was Stalin and the USSR -- their role was absolutely clear for the French," said Stephane Grimaldi, director of the Caen Memorial Museum for World War II in Normandy. "But 50 years later, it's the US that won, for the very simple reason that in the meantime we had the Cold War," he said. Hollywood also helped change perceptions with a string of hit films starting in the 1960s showing brave Americans fighting far from home. "If you look at way it has been portrayed in popular culture, it's all about the battle in France and the Battle of Britain, but World War II was overwhelmingly Germans and Russians killing each other," said Jeremy Shapiro from the European Council on Foreign Relations."
- osullivj 3y ago
  You're overlooking the war in the Pacific. Hitler hoped that Japan would keep the US busy, and wanted a free hand to attack lend lease shipping. US Atlantic supply was key to keeping the UK and USSR alive and fighting. The UK shipped Churcill tanks via the Arctic convoy. The US sent Shermans, Jeeps and much infra. All key to the eventual victory at Stalingrad.

sofixa 3y ago

> and it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity to delay a looming war between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union Citation needed. Stalin did things for his own reasons, and he didn't bother explaining them, so where are you getting this from? And if that were the case, why did the Soviet Union export so many crucial things (oil, tungsten, etc.) to Germany up to the very morning of Operation Barbarossa if they knew there will be used against them in the near future? And also, why was the Soviet Union caught off guard with the attack if they were expecting it and had mountains of intelligence showing it was imminent? Also, invading Poland, Finland and the Baltics was certainly a choice by the Soviet Union. Yes, they're responsible for the start of WW2 because not only did they collaborate with Nazi Germany, they also gave Hitler and Germany a stable Eastern Front allowing them to focus on Poland and then Benelux and France. > Soviet Union was an ally Ally of convenience purely and entirely. They needed the other United Nations for the stuff and the other fronts, and the other United Nations needed them against the Germans (let's not forget, Germany lost the war on the Eastern Front). It shows in Soviet intentions and actions against Eastern European nations, like when then set up a puppet Polish government even though in theory they were allied to the actual Polish government in exile.

xdennis 3y ago

> it is widely accepted that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a necessity What horrible russian propaganda! The pact was about splitting Europe. That's why Russia invaded Poland[1], the Baltic countries[2], Finland[3], and Romania[4] after signing it. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_states https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_the_Baltic_state... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_occupation_of_Bessarabi...

kgabis 3y ago

It wasn't a necessity. If Russia/Soviet Union was trying to delay the German invasion then they shouldn't have trained German troops and sent natural resources for it's war machine.