263
submitted 11 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Nudding@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

You know that was more so Russia right?

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 4 points 11 months ago

Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂

[-] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Because Stalin didn’t invade Poland and the Baltic states, right? And he didn’t sign agreements with hitler before the war?

Oh oh let me guess, they were “saving them from Nazis”! Now where have I heard that before…

[-] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The west constantly uses the memory of appeasement to justify its killings today but back when it was happening Stalin tried to start the war when Hitler could be easily crushed. It's only after the west decided they would rather use the nazis to kill the communists than prevent the holocaust that deal was made.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

What are you even talking about? Hitler attacked the Soviets, not the other way around. And it was because they broke their agreement and took territory that they said they wouldn’t.

Appeasement isn’t even relevant in this context, so not sure what you mean by that.

[-] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

"made a deal with Hitler"

What the fuck do you think appeasement was?

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago

In the context of WW2 appeasement refers to Britain and the rest of Europe giving pieces of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Not a deal between the Soviets and Germany to carve up Eastern Europe.

It’s ok keep working on your English!

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn't liberate Paris though.

[-] RichCaffeineFlavor@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

We would be living in a better world if they did

[-] Nudding@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa.

But yes, they lost the most lives. I'm not sure why that means it wasn't a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so.

[-] ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee 5 points 11 months ago

He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part.

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America's Lend Lease Act didn't cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory.

this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2023
263 points (86.6% liked)

News

23276 readers
4017 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS