I replied to someone saying that the USSR defeated the Nazis saying that it was a group effort. Got into an argument and called a Nazi repeatedly because "I was mad that the USSR defeated the Nazis and hated them for it" which is ridiculous. This isn't the first time that's happened on Lemmy. What's up with that?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago* (57 children)

The USSR having no concern for their own fighting men is not a plus towards this argument. Germany lost 3-4 million on that front. 3-4 million in comparison to 27 million shows that the Soviet strategy of throwing wave after wave of bodies was a bad strategy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 57 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago* (55 children)

    the 27 million includes approximately 16-19 million civilians who were systematically exterminated or died under occupation.

    blaming soviet military strategies for those deaths is historically illiterate. the nazi invasion was explicitly genocidal in intent, those civilians weren't casualties of soviet tactics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 55 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (54 children)

    Okay? That still doesn't mean that the Soviets won the war singlehandedly, which is the argument that was being made. Around 11 million Soviet soldiers and sailors were lost. The only excuse for that is strategy. Losing 11 million to 4 million is , frankly, awful and the only reason they didn't lose completely was that they had the numbers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (18 children)

    Losing 11 million to 4 million is , frankly, awful and the only reason they didn’t lose completely was that they had the numbers.

    soviet POWs were systematically murdered rather than held as prisoners. this was a war of extermination and qualitatively different from every other theater. very different from conventional warfare, a significant portion (on the order of 3+ million) of those 'military' deaths were just starving or working prisoners to death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    And that's fucking awful, it still doesn't mean that the Soviets, and only the Soviets won the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    and that's not what was said, that was your spin for the pity thread

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    "the US didn't win the war, the Soviets did"

    You've quoted that to me twice as if I responded that the US won the war, which I never did. I said it was a group effort because it was. You seem to think it was only a European war and not a world war. Do we need to break down the Pacific theater now and break down the contributions there? Or can you accept the fact that the World War was a group effort?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    it was a group effort, but the US didn't win it; the soviets did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (13 children)

    it was a group effort

    A statement completely negated by

    but the US didn't win it; the soviets did.

    Also, I never said or even implied that the US "won the war" because anyone with half a brain knows that the allies (USSR included) won the war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Lend lease was fuck all. The CIA admitted the Soviets would have beaten Germany without it, albeit, slower.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    as i said elsewhere, it's only contradictory if you assume "group effort" means equal contribution, which is the whole point being contested.

    it's also why you got shouted down for trying to uplift the US's participation beyond what it actually was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    it's also why you got shouted down for trying to uplift the US's participation beyond what it actually was.

    Which I never did no matter how much you want to think I have.

    I said "group effort" meaning the allied powers all over the world. I did not say "the US showed up, kicked all the Nazi ass, and won the war" which you seem to think I'm saying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

    i don't want to put words in your mouth and i do wish that your comments didn't get deleted so i could actually assess this.

    from the way i read the aftermath, someone said that the US hasn't won a war since wwii, someone else said that it was the USSR who won it, then you showed up to say it was a group effort (tho i can't actually read what you said, inferring it from this post.) in that context it read like minimizing, which is what i saw from the people responding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    So you admit you only saw one side of the argument and made assumptions about me? I didn't expect that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    why would you not expect me to be honest?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Because you came in to defend the people I originally had the argument with who called me a Nazi for the grievous sin of calling a world war a group effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (34 children)

    the person you replied to said:

    they [the US] didn’t win wwii, the soviets did.

    the original claim was not that the soviets won single-handedly. they were responsible for taking on 70-80% of the german war effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (33 children)

    Too bad the axis was made up of more than Germany.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 33 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (31 children)

    the original claim was not that the soviets won single-handedly, from what i can tell it was that the US did not.

    "The US didn't win the war, the Soviets did". You've quoted it to me twice now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (29 children)

    A statement which contradicts itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (26 children)

    it's only contradictory if you assume "group effort" means equal contribution...

    Then Let's talk about the Soviet contribution to the Pacific theater. Or does that not count because it isn't eurocentric?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (24 children)

    Somewhere between 21,000 and 83,000 Japanese losses to Soviet forces compared to compared to 1.2-1.5 million lost to US forces.

    Who came in at the last minute there? 🤔

    And that's ignoring the contributions from other allied nations in that theater.

    Sounds like a group effort, huh?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (23 children)

    Who came in at the last minute there? 🤔

    i mean they were still fighting against a war of extermination at the time.

    Sounds like a group effort, huh?

    yeah in order of participation against japan it was China, then the US, then the USSR

    which is why it's a little silly when people say the US hasn't won a war since WWII; it was junior partner in that group effort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 1 month ago (22 children)

    That might be true if China wasn't completely railroaded by Japan.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (21 children)

    same argument as for the USSR; i don't see how them fighting against a war of extermination makes them killing more japanese than the US less significant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 month ago (20 children)

    But they killed significantly less Japanese than the US did.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago (18 children)

    I'll admit I don't know as much about the Chinese war effort, but it shouldn't be controversial to criticize the Soviet strategy when it was literally "throw as many bodies at the problem as possible", which it factually was. It also ignores the fact that they were allied with Germany until Germany double-crossed them and had Germany not double-crossed them there's a good chance they would have remained on that side. This is after the Nazis purged the Socialists and Communists in Germany after using them to win control in the first place. So forgive me for not sucking Stalin's dick and taking pity on the USSR for catching fleas from the dogs they went to bed with.

    This is not an anti-communism or anti-socialism rant. This is an anti-short sighted opportunist rant.

    The USSR played a major role in the war once they joined the allies and I'm grateful for it, but ignoring everything before the German invasion of the USSR is silly and you know it.

    The way the Nazis treated Soviet POWs and civilians was abhorrent, but to act like the USSR didn't commit their share of war crimes is just as silly whether you think you can justify it or not. Not to mention how things turned out post-war for many Soviet satellites and Warsaw-Pact countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 month ago (17 children)

    This is not an anti-communism or anti-socialism rant.

    doubt

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (16 children)

    Doubt it all you want, it's true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 month ago (15 children)

    literally every major western power had a similar treaty with germany too, singling out the molotov-ribbentrop pact while ignoring western appeasement is selective historical memory. 'human waves' line is a trope from cold war propaganda, dehumanizing soviet soldiers and minimizing the victory. they won on their own merits under catastrophic conditions and were a more capable fighting force than the allies by the end.

    that's why your protestation rings a bit hollow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    literally every major western power had a similar treaty with germany too, singling out the molotov-ribbentrop pact

    But it's only cool when the Soviets did, right? Btw, the US never did.

    while ignoring western appeasement is selective historical memory

    Who's ignoring appeasement? Neville Chamberlain and Vichy France are not remembered fondly by anyone, for example.

    'human waves' line is a trope from cold war propaganda, dehumanizing soviet soldiers and minimizing the victory.

    The dehumanizing of Soviet soldiers was done by the USSR government by treating them as expendable.

    they won on their own merits under catastrophic conditions and were a more capable fighting force than the allies by the end.

    🙄 I have no doubt that the average Soviet soldier was a good fighter, it was their overlords that sucked and couldn't run a war without sacrificing millions.

    that's why your protestation rings a bit hollow.

    Only to deranged tankies who think that because the USSR was communist it could do no wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 month ago* (13 children)

    your point about the US is actually wrong, the US had significant commercial and diplomatic engagement with nazi germany all through the 1930s; many US companies had business relationships which were not stopped by the state department at any point. Many US industrialists were aligned with Nazi germany and had considerable sway over government, to the point of planning coup when they felt they weren't getting their way.

    US strategic bombing deliberately avoided hitting ford and GM owned plants in germany.

    standard oil continued business relationships with IG farben through neutral countries until 1943

    chase bank maintained accounts for nazi germany

    Only to deranged tankies who think that because the USSR was communist it could do no wrong.

    i'm an anarchist; believe it or not i have plenty of complaints about the USSR. those are beside the point right now though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Just always willing to defend the USSR’s war crimes and never accept Stalin made a mistake.

    stalin made a lot of fuckin mistakes and a lot of fucked up shit was done by the USSR. i still have an issue with american chauvinists doing actual holocaust denial about the extent of the extermination campaign against them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (10 children)

    US companies ≠ USA

    Also, the companies that initially supported Germany did so mostly in private and cut ties when war was declared and their factories were seized by the Nazis.

    US strategic bombing deliberately avoided hitting ford and GM owned plants in germany.

    That's an urban legend with minimal Truth behind it. While the GM plant was completely leveled, the Ford plant only received structural damage, though it's supporting infrastructure was destroyed.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCsselsheim_massacre#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOn_the_night_of_August_25%2C_the%2Cput_out_the_fires_in_their_homes.%3Fwprov=sfla1

    During World War II, Rüsselsheim, an industrial town that housed many key targets, including the Opel plant, was bombed several times by the Royal Air Force (RAF). The RAF followed a policy of "area bombing" of cities at night while the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) relied on "precision bombing" by day.[1]

    i'm an anarchist; believe it or not i have plenty of complaints about the USSR. those are beside the point right now though.

    Conveniently beside the point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (9 children)

    US companies ≠ USA

    i don't see it that way, if the US state department is turning a blind eye to these things i hold them responsible.

    Also, the companies that initially supported Germany did so mostly in private and cut ties when war was declared and their factories were seized by the Nazis.

    of the 350,000 trucks used by nazi germany for logistics 1/3 of them were made by ford, ford-werke was not seized in any meaningful sense, it continued operating as a war production facility under a german management board while ford motor company retained majority ownership throughout the war.

    the nazis appointed some german managers and ford lost day-to-day control, but ownership was never transferred, they maintained 56.575% of ford-werke. the claims they made were as the claimant owner, not a dispossessed party seeking return of stolen property.

    re: the GM plant, not contesting it got bombed, though it was wild that they got the US government to pay them for destroying their factory making shit for the nazis.

    the ford plant was mainly the one i was thinking of for getting little/no bombing, as detailed here, the damaged was mostly from artillery due to it ending up on the front lines, the bombing only hit labor camps and proving grounds


    When members of a combined U.S. and British intelligence team visited the plant, they discovered that the main building had suffered little structural damage. The blast from bombs and shells caused extensive superficial damage, and hardly any glass remained intact. No gas, electricity or water was available, which made an investigation difficult. One large building housing stores and offices had been gutted.

    The postwar custodian, Erhard Vitger, suggested in a report that most of the damage, which he attributed to artillery fire, was done to less crucial buildings – sheds which housed the Receiving Department, the Experimental Department, the Laboratory and repair shops. Additionally, Vitger’s report called for the replacement of the damaged “Garage.” The recreation hall, wooden office buildings and 12,000 square meters (129,167 square feet) of the “wooden buildings (formerly used as foreigner camp)” were described as destroyed by artillery fire.

    According to a postwar inventory of the plant, the fighting around the plant during the push through Cologne “caused damage to buildings, factory equipment, fixtures, cables, and materials, etc., stored in the factory in the amount of about RM 3,000,000.” This figure is supported by an inventory report prepared for Ford Motor Company by the Office of Lord Percival Perry, who had served on Ford-Werke’s board of directors before the war. Lord Perry’s report, written in September 1946, stressed that “damage to the main factory by artillery and mortar fire towards the end of the war, proved to be extensive but superficial.”


    Conveniently beside the point.

    from my perspective you've been engaging in holocaust denial and repeating nazi propaganda by insisting on dehumanizing people of the USSR with all the human wave tropes.

    if you weren't doing that i'd have more to say to you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (8 children)

    from my perspective you've been engaging in holocaust denial

    Then you're a fucking idiot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    you were though, i was curious based on your post and from our conversation you made that extremely clear.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago* (6 children)

    I wasn't and you should stop lying. You're just mad because I didn't agree that the USSR is solely responsible for winning WWII and now you're accusing me of Holocaust denial because that's what you stupid fucking tankies do. Pull your head out of your ass.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (4 children)

    Is that your strategy? Seems like it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (3 children)

    hey man i'm just summarizing your last post

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 month ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)