3 ms·
The Soviets would have gone under without lend-lease from capitalist US. They've paid much more in blood for which they deserve all the respect in the world, bu
by somedude895 1y ago
The Soviets would have gone under without lend-lease from capitalist US. They've paid much more in blood for which they deserve all the respect in the world, but defeating the Nazis was a joint effort. It's really strange how some revisionists in the West want so desperately to minimise their own part in defeating evil.
- jesterson 1y ago> The Soviets would have gone under without lend-lease from capitalist US That story has been heard many times. The reality is - we would never know that, so we can speculate as much as we would like.
- _mlbt 1y agoIt was a joint effort. Most serious World War II historians acknowledge that there were many important efforts among all of the Allies and the underground resistance in occupied nations. The siege of Stalingrad was crucial to the downfall of the Third Reich, but so was Normandy, the North Africa campaign, and the invasion of Italy. Opening up a second front pushed the Wehrmacht too thin, ensuring Allied victory. It is entirely possible that the Soviets would have ultimately defeated Hitler, but the actions by the Western Allies hastened Nazi Germany’s demise.
- jesterson 1y agoAgain it's a pure speculation. If I give you $100 and you conquer a villain while losing all your family while I will spend the time in restaurant. Can I say I actually conquered the villain? Sure, if I want to think i did. Thats how "allied forces" behave. The history is being rewritten all the times and "serious historians" are nothing but grifters on the runway.
- hollerith 1y agoEarlier you wrote, <<You must have forgotten whp have eventually conquered Hitler. Hint: it is not "allied forces">>. Well which is it: the Soviets conquered Hitler or we would never know who conquered Hitler?