7 ms·

> Actual Nazis getting standing ovations! Unbelievable. But he fought against the Russians. His past is here irrelevant. North American democracies have never

> Actual Nazis getting standing ovations! Unbelievable. But he fought against the Russians. His past is here irrelevant. North American democracies have never had issues with Nazis, as long as they can help them beat the Russia. They even got the highest possible positions, like for example, the chief of NASA that landed on the moon before the Soviets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun

mantas 3y ago
Eh. In those parts of europe Soviets/Russians was the evil. First, Soviets/Russians came in 1939. Atrocities started (Katyn, Rainiai, mass deportations to Gulag, pick your favourite). Then Nazis came as a new management and stopped those atrocities just to start their own. Few years later, Soviets rolled back in to resume what they started few years ago. And then there's another can of worms of how Poland acted to it's neighbours in 1920.
- mydriasis 3y ago
  Not alone. 25% of Belarus was exterminated by the Nazis.
  - mantas 3y ago
    Big portion of that blood is on soviets hands. Both for stabbing Poland and Baltic states in the back. And then running pro-soviet underground resistance that did little to stop nazis but was very successful in triggering well-known nazi response. As well as running their own atrocities on locals that took guns from nazis to defend from pro-soviet resistance.
justrealist 3y ago
I'm not sure how you explain WWII in this framing. There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, and uh, we did the opposite thing.
- miroljub 3y ago
  > There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, You mean like being neutral and refusing to open a second front for years, while Russians were fighting against Nazis. > and uh, we did the opposite thing. What, landed in Normandy in 1944 when the war was already decided because you were afraid of Soviets reaching Paris before you?
  - justrealist 3y ago
    The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't.
    - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      It's not like it wasn't explicit strategy of the US to try to work on two fronts -- defeat the NAZIs while also containing the Russians. At the end of the war a giant rush to prevent Soviet takeover of swathes of Europe and the far east, and some historians have spent whole careers analyzing how seriously the Americans considered opening a new front against Russia right at the end of the war. And there were certainly strong voices in North America pre-WWII that saw Hitler as a fairly useful bulwark against the red menace. Despite the way popular history paints these things, the game that folks in the allied command played was not some grandiose good vs evil fight with two clear sides. It was complicated and dirty and awful things were done by everyone including the Americans.
    - miroljub 3y ago
      > The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And those "huge" quantities were just a small drop in the sea of the total effort. Their significance was more for propaganda purposes than actual military impact. > And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you had any knowledge of history, you may be aware of the fact that the total German Afrika Korps consisted of merely 35,500 soldiers [1], while there were millions fighting on the Eastern Front. And you managed to drag those Africa operations for years. And Italy was selected as a target for the invasion exactly because it was strategically relevant. It was again defended by a minor German force for more than a year. It wasn't even a distraction for the Nazis. But I understand the USA didn't want to actually engage fighting Germany and end the war. It was in their interest to let them slaughter each other, regardless how many civilians get killed. > If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't. I never claimed Russia would have won WW2 alone. What I said is that the Soviets (not only Russia) did win against the Germany alone. The influence of other "allies" war minor. The USA had its role fighting against the Japan, but that was a completely separate fight. And even there, the Soviets helped the USA, by binding significant Japanese forces on their borders, that would otherwise be used against the USA, and maybe change the flow of war. They even did a similar move like the USA in Normandy, by defeating the Japanese expeditionary army in China. The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force, and is there up until now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps
himinlomax 3y ago
Ah yeah, I remember the Lend-Lease act, whereby the US and UK gave Sherman tanks to Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.
- flohofwoe 3y ago
  Doesn't change the fact though that both the US and SU have been fairly "pragmatic" after the war when it comes to Nazi scientists like Wernher von Braun (yes, the Soviets had "their" Nazi scientists too which helped them kickstart the transition into the jet and space age (just not as prominently on display as von Braun): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim)
drcongo 3y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. The US gave Klaus fucking Barbie a job after the war and then smuggled him to Bolivia to escape trial.

mantas 3y ago

Eh. In those parts of europe Soviets/Russians was the evil. First, Soviets/Russians came in 1939. Atrocities started (Katyn, Rainiai, mass deportations to Gulag, pick your favourite). Then Nazis came as a new management and stopped those atrocities just to start their own. Few years later, Soviets rolled back in to resume what they started few years ago. And then there's another can of worms of how Poland acted to it's neighbours in 1920.

mydriasis 3y ago
Not alone. 25% of Belarus was exterminated by the Nazis.
- mantas 3y ago
  Big portion of that blood is on soviets hands. Both for stabbing Poland and Baltic states in the back. And then running pro-soviet underground resistance that did little to stop nazis but was very successful in triggering well-known nazi response. As well as running their own atrocities on locals that took guns from nazis to defend from pro-soviet resistance.

justrealist 3y ago

I'm not sure how you explain WWII in this framing. There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, and uh, we did the opposite thing.

miroljub 3y ago
> There was a very easy way to help Nazis beat Russia in WWII, You mean like being neutral and refusing to open a second front for years, while Russians were fighting against Nazis. > and uh, we did the opposite thing. What, landed in Normandy in 1944 when the war was already decided because you were afraid of Soviets reaching Paris before you?
- justrealist 3y ago
  The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't.
  - cmrdporcupine 3y ago
    It's not like it wasn't explicit strategy of the US to try to work on two fronts -- defeat the NAZIs while also containing the Russians. At the end of the war a giant rush to prevent Soviet takeover of swathes of Europe and the far east, and some historians have spent whole careers analyzing how seriously the Americans considered opening a new front against Russia right at the end of the war. And there were certainly strong voices in North America pre-WWII that saw Hitler as a fairly useful bulwark against the red menace. Despite the way popular history paints these things, the game that folks in the allied command played was not some grandiose good vs evil fight with two clear sides. It was complicated and dirty and awful things were done by everyone including the Americans.
  - miroljub 3y ago
    > The US was shipping huge quantities of material aid to the Soviets long before 1944. And those "huge" quantities were just a small drop in the sea of the total effort. Their significance was more for propaganda purposes than actual military impact. > And invaded Italy and North Africa years before, if you had any knowledge of history. If you had any knowledge of history, you may be aware of the fact that the total German Afrika Korps consisted of merely 35,500 soldiers [1], while there were millions fighting on the Eastern Front. And you managed to drag those Africa operations for years. And Italy was selected as a target for the invasion exactly because it was strategically relevant. It was again defended by a minor German force for more than a year. It wasn't even a distraction for the Nazis. But I understand the USA didn't want to actually engage fighting Germany and end the war. It was in their interest to let them slaughter each other, regardless how many civilians get killed. > If you're going to be one of those tiresome "Russia would have won WWII alone!" nationalists then this conversation isn't worth having, but I'm happy to show evidence you're wrong, if you aren't. I never claimed Russia would have won WW2 alone. What I said is that the Soviets (not only Russia) did win against the Germany alone. The influence of other "allies" war minor. The USA had its role fighting against the Japan, but that was a completely separate fight. And even there, the Soviets helped the USA, by binding significant Japanese forces on their borders, that would otherwise be used against the USA, and maybe change the flow of war. They even did a similar move like the USA in Normandy, by defeating the Japanese expeditionary army in China. The only difference, they left China afterward, while the USA army stayed in Europe as an occupying force, and is there up until now. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrika_Korps

himinlomax 3y ago

Ah yeah, I remember the Lend-Lease act, whereby the US and UK gave Sherman tanks to Hitler to invade the Soviet Union.

flohofwoe 3y ago
Doesn't change the fact though that both the US and SU have been fairly "pragmatic" after the war when it comes to Nazi scientists like Wernher von Braun (yes, the Soviets had "their" Nazi scientists too which helped them kickstart the transition into the jet and space age (just not as prominently on display as von Braun): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Osoaviakhim)

drcongo 3y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted here. The US gave Klaus fucking Barbie a job after the war and then smuggled him to Bolivia to escape trial.