this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
303 points (96.9% liked)

Memes

45727 readers
533 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 45 points 1 month ago (4 children)

80% of nazis died on the eastern front. The US helped sure but it could have been won without them

[–] mlfh@lemmy.ml 39 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Nikita Khrushchev, in his own memoir, stating clearly that the USSR could not have won the war on its own:

I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

-Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich; Khrushchev, Serge (2004). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar, 1918–1945. Penn State Press. pp. 638–639.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 13 points 1 month ago

Interesting, I did not know about this. I'm hesitant to believe it bc its Kruschev but I will look into it further

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago

I really have no basis for evaluating the matter at hand one way or the other, but I would like to point out that Khrushchev is not a great source, especially when he's saying "Here's something Stalin said all the time in private that he never said publicly".

Don't get me wrong, you may very well be right, but I find it less convincing when paired with this evidence than if the claim is simply made with no evidence at all.

[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 19 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

You're not wrong but a lot of those eastern front deaths came from the final days of the war as the allies marched on Germany's own land and as well as many battles fought by the Allies across both fronts. The US was instrumental to the pacific front. You'd also have a hard time convincing me France could have been liberated without the US's D Day Operations.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They fought with American weapons and American funding

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Which was a very easy way for americans to fight the nazis at the expense of soviet lives. Not that their contribution wasn't valuable of course. It's just worth noting the full intentions of the united states.

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org -5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Soviets used Soviet lives to win. The same tactic they used against Napoleon. Retreat and destroy all essential supplies. The Soviet winter killed many of thier own too.

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The soviets were invaded by the nazis. The nazis were in the USSR killing them on their land. Would you expect them not to die? To not fight using whatever means they could to protect their families from actual nazis who they know have slaughtered millions? Who else's lives would they use?

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doubling back on the lives shed by the U.S. statement then?

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how this is in contradiction

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Either the U.S. has some undisclosed tie to Soviet lives lost, or you are I guess using the presumption that the U.S. is at fault for WW2 entirely.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It took me a second to get what your saying, it's kind of an obtuse argument, but no, that's not the logical implication of what our friend said. The logical implication is that the Lend Lease program was a way for the US to tip the scales with minimal cost to American lives, essentially having the Soviets fight a proxy war (insofar as Lend Lease was the basis for their being able to fight, something which I need to assume gets exaggerated by anticommunists for obvious reasons). The US could have instead spent the same resources on its own military to further enable it to fight on the western front rather than put it in Soviet hands.

I don't think it's really that interesting or useful an argument to make, but it does make sense.

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that explanation goes way more roundabout than my initial assertion.

There needs to be a new term coined "commie-splaining" that is give to those that just need to scratch that itch y'all get from propaganda.