• Dessalines@lemmy.ml
    51·
    2日前

    In case people aren’t aware, the Victims of Communism foundation is a US government organization that was set up by an act of congress in 1993.

    Congress also passed a bill funding them to design highschool curriculum, called the “crucial communism teaching act”.

    • monovergent 🛠️@lemmy.ml
      12·
      2日前

      Just reminded me of a history teacher who, when teaching the Containment policy, showed us a jar with a slip of paper contained within, which read “COMMUNISM”. Displayed prominently in the classroom thereafter.

      Didn’t work on me. When my assigned seat changed such that the jar and I were out of view of the teacher while at the board, I popped the lid off in front of everyone.

      Lol

      • krolden@lemmy.ml
        4·
        1日前

        My high school history class stopped the tankman video right before the tank tried to move out of the way and said “this is the only footage to escape the oppressive regime. We don’t know what happened to tank man but we assume he was run over”

        When I finally saw the full video I thought it was fake

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
      23·
      2日前

      The entire Nazi ideology is rooted in victim mentality. The notion that the “Aryan” race is being oppressed by those barbaric Jews, Slavs, Romani, Chinese, etc. And because of that they need to exterminate those people before they can exterminate the Aryans.

      • Tenderizer78@lemmy.mlEnglish
        6·
        2日前

        Victim mentality is on the rise, for two reasons. Firstly people are being led to believe their special and entitled to success without work, and secondly because success has become unattainable even with work.

        I think this may have something to do with the rise in Nazism in capitalist countries.

        • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
          5·
          1日前

          “Fascism is capitalism in decay”

          – IDK

          Edit: I think it’s also the reactionary response capitalists have to left wing momentum in the population. Hitler leveraged the threat of communism to gain power and the first people he sent to camps were German communists. Sound familiar with this whole woke thing? When a population is stressed they will generally lean either far left or right and the right wing is in power and want to suppress the left wing.

          • Tenderizer78@lemmy.mlEnglish
            2·
            1日前

            While I agree that when there’s a push for change by the left, the elite will redirect it towards the right to save themselves, I don’t think that’s what’s happening here. There isn’t an effective push for change on the left for them to fight.

            The rise of Trump among young voters was driven in part by the failure of the Democrats to offer a credible alternative (same in the UK), the global rise in the far-right in general (even in countries where they have no credible path to power, like Germany or Australia) is due to the unique psychology our environment has created for this generation.

  • Zerush@lemmy.ml
    245·
    2日前

    Often hilarious how the history is biased by some collectives. Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done. After this the cold war, where secret US papers were filtred, specifying locations in Europe where they were going to use nuclear bombs to stop an alleged Russian invasion.

    Cuba crisis, it causes almost a WWIII, because evil Russia wanted to park there nuclear missiles. What is never mentioned, was,that it was an answer to the US nuclear missiles that were parked long before in Turkey, pointing to Russia. The escalation was avoided by an Rusian commander, while the US already had the finger on the red button.

    Yes, certainly communism is really bad and the US the good boys which always save the world, even by nuke civilians in two cities, training and arm jihadists and Talibans, destroying democracies supporting dictators, like the September 11 with over 3000 victims, in 1973, when the CIA organized and supported an military coup by Pinochet to eliminate Allende.

    Most of the currend Wars in the world and dictatorships are direct or indirect caused by the work of our good US boys. Thank you America, GFY

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      182·
      2日前

      Officially US the good ones which won Nazi Germany, despite that is was Rusia and the allied, the US only enter when almost everything was done

      The Soviet Union (and I say that to emphasize that it was not simply Russia) and other Allies also played an important role in the Pacific Theatre too once they had some breathing space. I suppose the US glorify it so aggressively because it’s one of the few major wars they were on the winning side of, but when they rapidly promoted former Nazis to high political positions and launched Operation Gladio, one can’t help but realize their troops were only sent there to stop those Nazis, not Nazism.

      How easily the US’s friends are forgotten… [1][2]

      • Bloomcole@lemmy.world
        92·
        2日前

        I have seen detailed explanations of why even their Pacific importance wasn’t as big as they claimed.
        And they intervened in Europe not to stop the nazis but the Soviets from taking it all, which would’ve happened in no time if they didn’t meet the ‘allieds’ in Berlin.
        I wonder who they were allied with BTW, since they saved 10000’s of nazis from the Soviets and evacuated them, or in Italy let them surrender and enabled them to go fight the Soviets.
        All of the nazis in the west got fully rehabilitated despite the handful of death penalties in the Nuremberg showtrials.

  • Jamablaya@lemmy.world
    63·
    2日前

    Think they might be talking about the Polish people, not the nazi soldiers. Dunno if I remember right, but there was also a internal civil war of multiple factions, one backed by Germany and the other Russia

  • josefo@leminal.space
    31·
    2日前

    I refuse to believe that the tweet is real. This is just satire, right guys? Hahaha, please be satire

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      34·
      2日前

      I see you’re lucky enough not to be familiar with the Victims of Communism Foundation. This is pretty standard for them.

      They’re also extremely successfully at mainstreaming these kind of views: they’re often cited by “respectable” western media like BBC, are used by Wikipedia, and are the original and only source for a lot of the kind of scandalous accusations against China that liberals will call you a tankie if you don’t believe

      • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
        12·
        2日前

        Surprised there are still comments denouncing it on X. Guess Grok isn’t as good at censoring wokism as Elon claims.

        Also, I like this picture, gonna post it here in case it gets removed:

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      63·
      2日前

      I mean, the obvious answer is instead of trying to divvy the sovereign nation between them, they should have stood up for them and defended them when the Nazis rolled in. Barring that, they should have liberated them, then left them the fuck alone. Even a stopped clock is right sometimes, this comparison is pretty clearly silly. They weren’t lamenting the lives of Nazis lost in the battle to push them out of Poland. They were lamenting the lives of the Poles after falling under the Russian boot, after the battles were won.

    • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
      2616·
      2日前

      I mean they could’ve not made a pact with Nazi Germany to jointly divide Eastern Europe. Like start from that.

      And before anyone mentions, that includes others who made pacts with them too.

      • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
        265·
        2日前

        Them: “so what should they have done?”

        You: “Well I’ll tell you what they shouldn’t have done!”

        So, in short, you can’t actually answer the question.

        • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
          511·
          2日前

          Refuse to enable Nazi expansion, prepare for war, try to make allies. So carry on before they chose to make a pact. Making that pact with Nazis wasn’t some inevitable law of nature they just had to do. You can always resist.

          There’s always a reason for all kinds of actions but it’s just an attempt to avoid moral scrutiny to present the situation as inevitable. There were other options, they chose not to do those but rather made a pact. Agree or disagree with the decision from moral or some realpolitik sense, doesn’t matter. Presenting it as inevitable is avoidance.

          • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
            19·
            2日前

            molotow-ribbentrop was to buy time to prepare for war. They built a huge industrial complex east of the Ural to prepare since they correctly predicted that their facilities in the west would soon be overrun. They also tried to find allies but were shut down at every turn. When it was clear that there were no allies to be found and every other nation had made a non-aggression pact with the nazis only then did they resort to making their own.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              312·
              2日前

              I don’t think anyone thought the USSR did it for no reason. I’m just saying they could’ve chosen not to make those pacts and that’s why dividing Eastern Europe with the Nazis is given as a moral black mark for USSR.

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                15·
                2日前

                Lol, anti communists will never forgive the USSR for not letting the Nazis have all of Eastern Europe.

              • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.ml
                121·
                2日前

                Why? It bought them time to prepare further and gave them the possibility to station troops forward in land that they knew was gonna be overrun by nazis and need liberation afterwards anyway. I really don’t understand what’s so bad about it. You dont win wars with “moral points” but with strategy like that.

                • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                  310·
                  2日前

                  You’re asking why making a pact with the Nazis is a black mark? I would think that’s obvious. Same for Chamberlain and everyone else.

          • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
            12·
            2日前

            You really are writing a lot of responses that don’t answer the question. It’s funny how you go on about there being other options while diligently refusing to actually list them.

            • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
              112·
              2日前

              Instead of making a pact with the Nazis, refuse to do that and prepare for war. Do you want a fucking WikiHow article detailing the steps for a troop mobilization of 1939 Soviet Union or what

              • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                13·
                2日前

                They did prepare for war with the Nazis, and the pact was part of that. So I take it then your answer is that they shouldn’t have prepared as much for the war with the Nazis.

                Given that the level of preparedness they did manage was still only barely enough to win, you answer is ultimately that you wanted the USSR to take a course of action that would have allowed the Nazis to win the Eastern Front.

                Which is ultimately always what it comes down; resentment that the Soviets won.

                • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                  19·
                  2日前

                  I don’t think anyone should’ve made pacts with Nazis and enabled their actions through that. It’s not specific to the USSR.

  • vane@lemmy.world
    115·
    2日前

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Information_on_the_Crimes_of_Communism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Study_of_Totalitarian_Regimes
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_the_Investigation_of_Communist_Crimes_and_the_Memory_of_the_Romanian_Exile
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_the_Documentation_and_the_Investigation_of_the_Crimes_of_Communism
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_crimes_(Polish_legal_concept)

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        1714·
        2日前

        Genuinely, what should the Soviet Union have done instead? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?

        Start with not making a pact with Nazis to divide Europe imo. That’s one part that was enabling the Nazi expansion.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          132·
          2日前

          They didn’t, the closest is there being lines neither country should cross. Both the Soviets and Nazis knew war was coming between them and that the treaty would not hold for long, it wasn’t a long-term plan.

          • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
            311·
            2日前

            Having a pact and zones of interest freed up manpower for Nazis to use in other parts of Europe. That’s how it was part in enabling them. Not that USSR would’ve been guilty of that alone or nowhere near the first to enable the Nazis.

            • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
              121·
              2日前

              So your complaint is that the USSR didn’t take even more of the brunt of the Nazis forces.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                19·
                2日前

                My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could’ve been stopped way earlier.

                • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                  11·
                  2日前

                  The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.

                  They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  9·
                  2日前

                  The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              10·
              2日前

              Sure would’ve been great if the Soviet Union had the industrial power to take Nazi Germany on by itself, or had the trade with the west at the time to help close the gap. No perfect solution was available to the Soviets.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                16·
                2日前

                I mean we don’t know what would’ve happened but yes everyone was playing time and hoping Nazis would look elsewhere for at least some time.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  8·
                  2日前

                  We know that the Soviet Union was industrializing at incredibly high rates, but was still far behind Germany in total industrialization. We know that the west was trading a ton with the Nazis, and were hostile to the Soviets. We know that the Nazis and Soviets hated each other. What should the Soviet Union have done? Declare war before they were ready, and risk everyone allying with Nazi Germany? Let the Nazis take all of Poland?

        • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
          147·
          2日前

          Them: “so what should they have done?”

          You: “Well I’ll tell you what they shouldn’t have done!”

          So, in short, you can’t actually answer the question.

      • machiavellian@lemmy.ml
        810·
        2日前

        If this isn’t a trollpost and your not getting paid for it, then I’m just baffled on how wrong someone can be regarding generic historical facts. Aside from the idea itself, that it is somehow normal and even commendable to assist foreign states against enemies without them requesting it, all the while criticizing the US for similar actions, your opinion ignores the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop secret pact.

        And for argument’s sake, let’s just pretend, that Soviets were of kind heart and mind and truly wanted to help and protect the Polish people from the horrifing Nazis they so clearly detested. Then why did they host a joint parade in Brest-Litovsk after having conquered Poland?? Or better yet, why did they mercilessly execute 20 000 officers in the woods of Katyn? Not to mention the fact that the Warsaw Uprising failed because the Soviets deliberatly waited for all future dissidents to be killed off, before “liberating” it.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          112·
          2日前

          I didn’t ignore anything, I wrote about it in greater detail here. There was no “secret pact.” As for the parade, it was marked for the withdrawal of the Nazis from where they had overstretched. As for Katyn, the Nazis “discovered” the site, and Goebbels was the one to popularize it, yet the execution method of shooting civilians (children included) from behind into a mass grave was one the Nazis repeated countless times yet the Soviets were never found to “repeat” this method, and further, the ammunition was from Nazi Germany.

  • Deflated0ne@lemmy.worldEnglish
    28·
    3日前

    The black book is some hilarious stuff. They count the hypothetical unborn children of nazis. Also it counts the nazis.

    • HiddenLayer555@lemmy.mlEnglish
      3·
      2日前

      Wasn’t there also a really egregious part where they were estimating how many children the average young adult woman had in Tsarist Russia vs the USSR, and because the birth rates were lower in the USSR, they counted the supposed population deficit as victims?

      Gonna make like a goose and ask them why women in the USSR had lower birth rates. Couldn’t be access to contraception/abortion, sex and family planning education, equal rights as men, or better career options, right?

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      11·
      2日前

      Reminder that multiple co-authors denounced the book when they saw how ludicrous the other sections were, such as tallying millions of Nazi soldiers as victims of communism.

  • iii@mander.xyzEnglish
    1114·
    3日前

    World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR, led by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin respectively. As of 1 September 1939, the very first day of World War Two, both totalitarian regimes held joint military action against Poland. Starting from 1 September, German bombers were guided onto their targets in Poland from a radio station located in Minsk

    In accordance with the secret protocol as to Hitler-Stalin Pact, also known as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the new allies – Germany and the Soviet Union – were to jointly invade Poland. Red Army troops were to march into Poland three days following the Reich’s attack. Joseph Stalin, however, did not adhere to the protocol, with his troops advancing into Poland only 17 days after the Germans hit. The delay was caused by concerns over the propaganda discourse in the West, which Stalin wanted to focus on Germany solely.

    The class struggle is a cornerstone of Karl Marx’s philosophy. It requires a restructuring of society in accordance with communism. When put in practice, this brought about genocide: the killing of 10 to 15 percent of a given society as well as annihilating its elites and those strata of society that were unwelcome in a communist state. For communists they stood in the way of communist rule and of harnessing entire societies under a totalitarian regime.

    (1)

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      201·
      3日前

      The communists spent the decade prior trying to form an anti-Nazi coalition force, such as the Anglo-French-Soviet Alliance which was pitched by the communists and rejected by the British and French. The communists hated the Nazis from the beginning, as the Nazi party rose to prominence by killing communists and labor organizers, cemented bourgeois rule, and was violently racist and imperialist, while the communists opposed all of that.

      When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon. Throughout the last decade, Britain, France, and other western countries had formed pacts with Nazi Germany, such as the Four-Power Pact, the German-French-Non-Agression Pact, and more. Molotov-Ribbentrop was unique among the non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany in that it was right on the eve of war, and was the first between the USSR and Nazi Germany. It was a last resort, when the west was content from the beginning with working alongside Hitler.

      Harry Truman, in 1941 in front of the Senate, stated:

      If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don’t want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances.

      Not only that, but it was the Soviet Union that was responsible for 4/5ths of total Nazi deaths, and winning the war against the Nazis. The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis, it was about spheres of influence and red lines the Nazis should not cross in Poland. When the USSR went into Poland, it stayed mostly to areas Poland had invaded and annexed a few days prior. Should the Soviets have let Poland get entirely taken over by the Nazis, standing idle? The West made it clear that they were never going to help anyone against the Nazis until it was their turn to be targeted.

      • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
        17·
        2日前

        When the many talks of alliances with the west all fell short, the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact, in order to delay the coming war that everyone knew was happening soon.

        Same people excusing Soviet pact with Nazis bemoan Finland for doing the same. Where is the consistency. Not saying you are doing that but it’s always interested me.

        The Soviet Union did not agree to invade Poland with the Nazis

        The article is hilarious desperate in doing handwringing and trying to sidestep the whole thing. “Well akshually it didn’t invade Poland because the government had ceased to exist!” But it also claims Soviet Union couldn’t have invaded Poland because Poland didn’t declare war on Soviet Union. Lmao

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          7·
          2日前

          Some of the author’s arguments come off as technicalities, but the underlying facts of the situation do come from real evidence, which is more the purpose of linking that source. The fact that there wasn’t an agreement to invade Poland, but instead borders that the Nazis should not cross and which the Nazis did anyways and the Soviets kicked them back, fundamentally changes the “ally” narrative.

          • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
            17·
            2日前

            What are the actual arguments you consider good from it? I didn’t see anything other than handwringing and “well technically”

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              8·
              2日前

              Less the arguments, more the evidence: there was nothing like a secret agreement to invade Poland, there were informalized areas the Nazis were to not go beyond and areas the Soviets were not to go beyond. This would be indicative of a percieved alliance if it wasn’t for the fact that at the same time, the Soviet Union was preparing for war with the Nazis and the Nazis the same for the Soviet Union, it was just a way to buy a bit of extra time as the west refused to join the Soviets until the war had become unavoidable on their turf.

              • RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz
                15·
                2日前

                Secret Protocol, Article I & II

                Article I

                In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement in the areas belonging to the Baltic States (Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania), the northern boundary of Lithuania shall represent the boundary of the spheres of influence of Germany and U.S.S.R. In this connection the interest of Lithuania in the Vilnius area is recognized by each party. Article II edit

                In the event of a territorial and political rearrangement of the areas belonging to the Polish state, the spheres of influence of Germany and the U.S.S.R. shall be bounded approximately by the line of the rivers Narew, Vistula and San.

                The question of whether the interests of both parties make desirable the maintenance of an independent Polish state and how such a state should be bounded can only be definitely determined in the course of further political developments.

                In any event both governments will resolve this question by means of a friendly agreement.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  4·
                  2日前

                  Yes, this was not an agreement to invade jointly, the USSR entered Poland 17 days after the Nazis did. This was the Soviet Union providing a “no-go” line for the Nazis in the event of Nazi invasion, largely including areas Poland had invaded and annexed from Lithuania and Ukraine a couple decades prior.

      • shoo@lemmy.world
        49·
        3日前

        the Soviets reluctantly agreed to sign a non-agression pact

        Putting aside all the usual arguments that get dismissed: What were the complex and mitigating factors that required supplying the Nazi war machine with more raw materials (oil, iron, grain, cotton, rubber, et al.) after the invasion of Poland? At the same time that the famously duplicitous Americans were enacting German tariffs and shifting economic support entirely to the Allies?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          152·
          3日前

          1. The Soviets desparately needed finished goods that they either couldn’t produce, or couldn’t produce in necessary quantities, and the West would not trade them for them.

          2. The US’s tariffs were notoriously symbolic. Ford, Coke, Dow Chemical, and many more continued business even into World War II. USian bombers were instructed to avoid USian factories in Nazi Germany.

          • shoo@lemmy.world
            210·
            3日前
            1. Damn, if only there were suppliers of finished goods that also were strategically aligned on fighting the Nazis. But if you can’t blame the USSR for a half measure non-aggression pact with the Nazis then you surely can’t blame the Allies for withholding trade to a country not committed to the fight. After all, the Soviets got the supplies they wanted once they were actually in the war.
            2. Nazi economic policy prevented profits from leaving Germany, and the fascist regimes were not subtle in their nationalization threats. Not much of a surprise that private enterprise will toe the line when faced with takeover vs nominal ownership. In terms of actual trade (ie: not Coke factories staying open to make Fanta), US exports to Germany dropped 97% from 1938-1939.

            I’m by no means arguing for the Democratic™️ ideological purity of the Allies, but it’s pretty clear what the universal political thinking was in the lead up to WWII. Everyone (from Hindenburg up to the USSR) thought they could keep the Nazis at arms length and aimed at their rivals. A few fascist atrocities can be overlooked so long as they happen to the right people.

            • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
              131·
              3日前

              1. The USSR spent a decade trying to form an anti-Nazi alliance, the west wanted the Nazis and communists to kill each other. The west had multiple non-agression pacts with Nazi Germany, and turned down many offers of alliances with the Soviets against the Nazis.

              2. US exports fell, they were of course at war, but the US continued business and was doing a ton of business in the lead-up to the war. Further, post-war, the US protected Nazis and even put them in charge of NATO to make use of their anti-communism, like Adolf Heusinger.

              It’s pretty clear that the decade leading up to World War II, the Soviets begged and pleaded for an anti-Nazi alliance, but people like Churchill, Ford, etc. loved the Nazis so much that this was impossible until the Nazis did what the Soviets said they would.

              • shoo@lemmy.world
                15·
                2日前
                1. Yes, the West wanted the Nazis and communists to fight and the Soviets wanted the Nazis to fight the West. Both sides acted accordingly. Why is this hard to admit?
                2. So? The other countries on the belligerent list are receiving more support by several orders of magnitude. Not to mention trade to the Allies and other European countries continuing to go up as the war went on, clearly the war wasn’t the deciding factor.

                The numbers OBJECTIVELY show a decrease in German trade to a pitiful amount. In the lead up to the US’s entry, quite literally the lowest of any European country (let alone adjusted per-capita). German U-boats were sinking US trade vessels up until the end, strange way to treat your trade parter?

                The numbers OBJECTIVELY show USSR-German trade in war materials increasing as the war starts, with no significant support to the Allies right up until they’re invaded. There’s not any arguing this.

                Pointing to post-WWII is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Either country could (and often does) gesture broadly at the Cold War to justify their actions.

                Why is it so hard to admit that Saint Stalin and the USSR engaged in hard geopolitics? Somehow you’re trying to push the narrative of the Soviets being weak victims that begged and pleaded and were forced to concede to German demands. But you’ll also claim they’re the sole reason that the Allies won WWII. Which is it?

                There’s a counterfactual history where the Soviets remain neutral and the Allies will still almost certainly win (though at a greater cost). The Axis simply didn’t have the manpower or resource access to keep up, hence their need to engage the USSR for oil. They certainly sped the war to it’s end, but that doesn’t change the fact that they could have made many different decisions if snuffing out fascism was their top priority.

                • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
                  5·
                  2日前

                  1. The Soviets wanted to fight the Nazis with the west the entire time, hence the numerous proposals for allied anti-fascist coalitions. The Soviets weren’t on good terms with the West, but saw the Nazis as the far greater threat and acted rationally.

                  2. As comrade @AnarchoBolshevik@lemmygrad.ml pointed out (that you cannot see) in this post, the US distorted economic reports and cloaked their continued ties to Nazi Germany throughout the war.

                  The Soviets were able to beat the Nazis, but at massive personal cost in human lives. They barely eaked out a win, because while they were massively industrializing, they were a poor, developing country against a country with a century-long industrial headstart. They needed to buy as much time as possible, as they were catching up, but the distance was still large. Those are the basic facts.

        • ∞🏳️‍⚧️Edie [it/its, she/her, fae/faer, love/loves, null/void, des/pair, none/use name]@lemmy.ml
          9·
          3日前

          Not just after the invasion of Poland, right up until the invasion of the Soviet Union.

            On the Russian side, General Thomas, Chief of the German War Industry Department, recorded that “the Russians carried out their deliveries as planned, right up to the start of the attack. Even during the last few days, transports of India rubber from the Far East were completed by express transit trains.”30
            This was not because the Russians did not expect to be attacked. As early as September 18, 1940, the Germans learned about anti-German propaganda in the Red Army, and interpreted it as a response to fear of attack by Germany.31 The Kremlin fulfilled its economic commitments to the end because it was determined to give Hitler no cause to attack. Until late in the day, also, the industrial and war materials received from Germany were a very important supplement to Russia’s armament efforts. The raw materials which Germany received were mostly perishable, while the arms and machines received by Russia remained when war came.

          The Cold War & Its Origins, 1917-1960, Vol. I, Denna F. Flemming, 1961, Chapter 6.

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
      113·
      2日前

      World War II began with a coordinated attack on Poland conducted by the Third Reich and the USSR

      Oh? What date did this “coordinated attack” take place, and how was the coordination handled? Presuming coordinating the movements of two different armies for such a large scale operation would have required a lot of back and forth signaling and planning, all of which would have become public record when the soviet archives were opened.