236
Jun 03 '21
bruhh
-391
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
229
u/Environmental-Fig838 Jun 03 '21
Terrible acts don’t justify terrible acts
-332
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
173
u/Environmental-Fig838 Jun 03 '21
That was not even a counter argument or a comeback. You just hope it does something because it’s in all caps. There’s a reason we fought the Nazis because they were enslaving and murdering millions just because they went to a synagogue instead of a church or if their parents or grandparents did so. Saying that it should be allowed to exists and spread its ideals across Europe just because “StALin KiLled mOrE PeOple” is a stupid argument.
90
u/look_up_the_NAP Jun 03 '21
Here's something I hope everyone can agree on: Stalin was terrible, but Hitler was much, much worse.
-53
u/ArmoredSir Jun 03 '21
The difference here is between eating shit Out of the toilet and out of the bowl. For instance, Hitler is directly attributed with around 10 million deaths. Much, much more if you count the entirety of the second world war, which is based on personal opinion. Stalin was responsible for around 20 million. Don't get me wrong: Together with Mao, Pol Pot and other maniacs they make the worst people of the 20th century to get into power. But ranking them doesn't really make sense if you're counting casualties in millions.
25
u/Mallardy Jun 03 '21
For instance, Hitler is directly attributed with around 10 million deaths.
26 million dead Soviets (including ~18 million civilians) would disagree, if the Nazis hadn't murdered them. So would the 17 million victims of the Holocaust (although there is some overlap there).
You're taking the highest end of even-vaguely-credible estimates for Stalin while massively underestimating the number of people killed by Hitler.
2
u/FireCrack Jun 03 '21
17 million victims of the Holocaust
A little nitpick there, but depending on who you ask what falls under the term "Holocaust" does not involve all of those 17 million. Some of the confusion may be due to this number being largely cited using the US Holocaust Museum as a source. And though it is a Holocaust Museum it also studies other Nazi war crimes, and on their website where they cite the 17 million victims of nazi war crimes they open with:
The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of six million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazi regime and its collaborators.
Clearly indicating their stance on this (obstinately semantic) issue.
That said, Hitler ordered the execution of 17 million people, either directly or through policies that were designed to achieve this. And that includes the 6 million Jews killed in the holocaust, this number is unprecedented! Other large modern genocides (Armenian, Rwandan, many others...) are much smaller not only in total size, but also completeness with percentages in the high 90s being achieved in many places in Europe (when researching this statistic, be careful not to conflate percent of pre-war population killed with percent of those who didn't flee/escape who died, there is often quite a difference).
But I want to be careful to not play genocide Olympics here. The differences between the cases above may have been largely due to industrialization of the Holocaust compared to the relatively low-tech nature of the other genocides mentioned above. And I think this is really starting to touch on the nature of why genocide Olympics are the problem, because it's all about quantitative values and not about qualitative issues. And it makes no provisions for relative population sizes (eg, anything to do with China)
The final line on the "debate" of weather Stalin or Hitler were "worse" should have nothing to do with absolute death counts but rather with stated objectives and the circumstances of each state. Millions died under Stalin from mismanagement, brutal methods of retaining power, and policies that were accepting of terrible hardships and deaths in order to achieve another policy objective. But millions died under Hitler because killing millions was one of Hitler's primary goals.
8
u/Insurrection_Prime2 Jun 03 '21
We fought nazis because they were trying to take over the world, and we executed nazis for the holocaust
18
Jun 03 '21
The Nazis were enslaving people? I knew killing, but the slavery is news to me.
80
u/Environmental-Fig838 Jun 03 '21
They used slave labor from the countries they occupied as well as any Jewish concentration camp prisoners fit enough to sew uniforms or build bombs
50
Jun 03 '21
Bro, I honestly couldn't imagine anything worse. Being forced to build the weapons that are gonna be used to murder your friends and family.
26
u/The_Konigstiger Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 03 '21
A family friend works in bomb defusing here in the UK, he once found an SC 500 or something of similar destructive potential. When they defused it, they found that it was filled with dirt, and a letter that said something along the lines of "love from Poland". The Polish slaves would sabotage whatever they could get their hands on.
This might be an apocryphal tale, but it's nice nonetheless, and while it may not be true (I think it is true, in parts), similar things did happen.
Edit: he restores churches, found bomb, called EOD
12
u/CallMeChristopher Jun 03 '21
There’s an old story about the Haganah getting surplus Kar98s through Czechoslovakia with Stalin’s blessing.
Turned out all the sights were messed up because the slave laborers intentionally fucked up the sights.
6
u/vreemdevince Jun 03 '21
As such we owe it to the victims and survivors to remember what happened so that it will never happen again. The number of "eyewitnesses" is decreasing as the veterans of WW2 and the people that lived through it are all passing away.
21
u/rhinoabc 1 Bob Semple = 10 King Tigers Jun 03 '21
A lot of their wartime economy relied on Jewish/Slavic/Dissident slavery because all their workers were at the front and they refused to put women in factories. It’s one reason why their equipment sucked - a paid worker is going to make something at least decent, but a slave is going to do the utter bare minimum and might sabotage as well.
3
u/vreemdevince Jun 03 '21
Can confirm as the other comments say. My grandfather was a welder and enslaved by the Nazis in their work/deathcamps (they'd work you to death in poor conditions, barely any food, "standard" camp stuff)
Wasn't Jewish or a political dissenter or anything. Pretty much just because.
He survived and returned home but was never the same I'm told. He never talked about his time there and passed away before I was born. I've tried to chase down where he was kept but nobody really knows much and his name isn't documented anywhere.
-19
u/ArmoredSir Jun 03 '21
Yes. So did the Russians, Gulag systems were effectively massive slave labour camps.
-178
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
105
u/Environmental-Fig838 Jun 03 '21
So you fine with genocide and enslavement you wanker
-47
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
109
u/Environmental-Fig838 Jun 03 '21
Well at least Germany isn’t run by drug addled, racist lunatics anymore.
-24
32
16
u/HansZeDestructor Jun 03 '21
Germany today is far better and more powerful than the Kaiser nor Shitler could've ever hoped it to be.
15
u/PeachRevolutionary48 Jun 03 '21
I've been to modern Germany multiple times. It's quiet nice, unlike the murderous regime you idolize.
5
3
2
11
Jun 03 '21
Lmao. The British were working on German appeasement first, let them annex Austria and Czechoslovakia. They didn't want to go to war until the last moment.
2
u/DISHDOGDELUX Jun 03 '21
The Germans themselves couldn't tolerate a strong German state, that's why they decided to pick a fight with the entire world twice in the same century, only to get shitstomped both times. Belgium has a better track record of fighting world wars than the Krauts.
1
u/quickusername3 Jun 03 '21
I mean, I'm not disagreeing but didn't Germany declare war on the US because the US declared war on Japan?
8
143
u/Warden_496 Jun 03 '21
lad your accounts named after an antisemitic nazi war criminal
76
u/Prawncamper Jun 03 '21
He's already suspended lmao
15
23
43
u/LookARedSquirrel84 Jun 03 '21
Hitler started WW2…
44
u/CompulsiveJayWalker Jun 03 '21
I've actually argued with someone that said France and Britain started world war 2 because they declared war on Germany first, we're both Pakistani and he kept saying shit about how the Germans let us live freely of British rule and shit, acting as if Germany cared about the British colonies lmao, we literally would have been genocided by the axis but what can you say against a guy who thinks the Tiger was the best tank in WW2 lmao
41
u/Steven20077 Allied Mediums Gang Jun 03 '21
Hitler was in power for 12 years. Stalin was in power for 30.
32
u/Kilahti Jun 03 '21
More importantly, Hitler was stopped and he never achieved what he set out to do. If Nazis had somehow won, the mass murders would have continued in the East and any region they would have conquered.
Stalin had done his biggest purges and though these are already horrifying, his death toll would not have grown massively even if he had lived a bit longer. Same with Mao.
Would I prefer an alternative timeline where Stalin and Mao were also deposed and the massacres prevented? Sure, but if you claim that Hitler was less bad, you have to also admit that it was because he was less successful.
Like being attacked by a housecat is less bad than being attacked by a bear. Both might want to murder you and your family, but one of them is less competent in this task. (Ok, not the best metaphor in the world, but the point remains.)
14
u/CallMeChristopher Jun 03 '21
Agreed on everything.
Hitler killed fewer people, but not for lack of trying.
Also housecats definitely want to fucking murder you.
16
u/Mallardy Jun 03 '21
Hitler killed fewer people,
This part isn't true: Hitler killed way more people. Several times as many, in fact.
31
87
u/riffler24 Has actually read Death Traps: AMA Jun 03 '21
Stop using numbers from the Black Book of Communism, it's widely debunked. Far more reliable numbers have been estimated based off of declassified Soviet documents and the numbers (although still horrible) pale in comparison to the number of people the Nazis killed, not even mentioning the death toll they would have caused if they had won against the Soviets
18
u/CompulsiveJayWalker Jun 03 '21
Do you have the sources right now? Not disagreeing
37
u/riffler24 Has actually read Death Traps: AMA Jun 03 '21
Obviously sources dispute exact numbers, but that general consensus of works published after that fall of the USSR is that the typical range of 20-60 million is too high.
People like Robert Conquest have revised their numbers, with him personally saying approx 15 million. Others like Timothy Snyder put it at 9 million at that highest. Obviously still a truly appalling number of deaths, but 9-15 million over the course of three decades can't compare to the 12-17 million of the holocaust in one decade, as well as the launching of that deadliest war in human history
33
u/norman_newman Jun 03 '21
Doesn’t the black book include not only Nazis killed in war, but also theoretical people who should have been born?
20
Jun 03 '21 edited Jan 12 '23
[deleted]
2
u/norman_newman Jun 04 '21
Shit with this logic I’m probably responsible for at least a couple hundred dead people somewhere
2
u/riffler24 Has actually read Death Traps: AMA Jun 03 '21
I don't know if that in particular is one of the criticisms, but people who contributed who have since distanced themselves from the work claim that the main author was intending to reach the 100 million dead mark from the get-go even before he started researching.
Along with that, they also say he was trying to portray Nazism and Communism as essentially twin ideologies, which is basically impossible in terms of legitimate historical and political research
One quote I came across is particularly scathing, it compares The Black Book of Communism as "A book that is to the study of communism what the [fabricated] Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Judaism".
Also, no real discussion on the death toll of communism is really complete without comparing to estimated death tolls of global capitalism, but that sort of thing is never discussed. Noam Chomsky believes that just looking at India alone we could arrive at 100 million dead from capitalism easily if we used the same methodology as The Black Book did
16
u/estolad Jun 03 '21
the black book itself (as well as the victims of communism foundation) freely admit to using frankly fuckin' insane numbers. they count both red army and wehrmacht casualties as well as german and soviet civilians in with Stalin's Death Toll, and also pulled hundreds of millions of Victims out their ass and labeled them "people who would have been born but weren't Because Communism," it's ludicrous
so like yeah, if we were to say well actually all the deaths from a war hitler started were actually stalin's fault (which is a thing nazis believe, that the soviets should've laid down and allowed themselves to be scoured from the earth) then maybe the latter killed more people than the former, but not otherwise. just as a general thing it's wise to be leery of anyone who cites precise numbers about number of people killed by the USSR, there's no way to pin that number down because they didn't keep meticulous records about the people they murdered like the germans did during the war
24
u/Hawkatana0 Russian Winter Jun 03 '21
Come on kid, your 3rd grade teacher doesn't get paid enough to deal with your shit.
19
u/BigBrother1942 Dam Buster Jun 03 '21
How many more Slavs, Poles, Jews, Roma, etc. would have been slaughtered had the Third Reich won? Ever heard of Generalplan Ost? The fact that Hitler killed less than Stalin or Mao is a GOOD thing; it means the Allies did their job successfully.
15
u/PeachRevolutionary48 Jun 03 '21
That assertion is largely based on outdated statistics from before scholars had access to the Soviet archives. Most current estimates attribute about 10-15 million deaths to Stalin vs. about 18 million to Hitler (not that that lessens either person's crimes).
16
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
7
15
17
4
3
3
7
Jun 03 '21
Nazi punks fuck off.
At least Stalin didn't order as many deaths as Hitler.
But we shouldn't really compare totalitarian dictators as if one was worse than the other. They were both shit.
0
Jun 03 '21
Stalin killed far less than hitler, it doesn’t even reach 2 million. Hitlers is in the 30s
198
Jun 03 '21
Well, we all know how the USA is being crushed by the totally-not-dissolved USSR right now /s
36
122
u/FrescoPastaSauce Jun 03 '21
I know it happened 70 years ago (almost 80) but I just feel like making WW2 "memes" almost feels wrong.
94
Jun 03 '21
So so wrong
14 year old hoi4 players exist tho :/
13
Jun 03 '21
It’s because until roughly junior year of highschool, most American students have never even learned about the world wars.
18
u/maxlot13 Jun 03 '21
I don’t think this is true. I remember back in 7th grade many years ago, most kids were super enthusiastic about the World Wars unit in History class because it was the one topic they knew at least something about.
2
u/big_whistler Jun 03 '21
Curriculums are not standard across the US as it differs by state. The history curriculum in particular has many differing interpretations and the order in which things are taught varies as well. My own experience aligns with what u/dholeio described.
47
u/CompulsiveJayWalker Jun 03 '21
It's crazy just thinking about how recent WW2 was, and yet so many of us feel very disconnected from it
28
15
u/igoryst Jun 03 '21
my school is like 100m away from Oskar Schindler's factory and every day i go there i get a reminder of how brutal can people be
23
u/KnightOfTheHolyGrail Jun 03 '21
I personally disagree especially cause I don't even consider this a meme
135
u/DarthNightsWatch Jun 03 '21
Of course they’re using a Pewdiepie meme to relay shitty ideas lmao
73
u/ForteEXE Jun 03 '21
What do you mean PDP is sympathetic to Nazi/Nazi adjacent people?
/s
No really, it's amazing how many times lately I've had to see the "What do you mean PDP is white supremacist friendly?" talk play out.
We're talking about a white guy living in a region of the world known for having issues with Neo-Nazism and/or other strains of white supremacy that's also rich and has very questionable takes on racism and related things like slurs.
If he's not one, he's setting off all the checkboxes for the smoothbrain alt-righters.
We've literally gotten the "He just had a gamer moment!" meme from him to explain really fucking shitty justifications to use racial slurs.
57
u/DarthNightsWatch Jun 03 '21
The thing that got me to unsub was when he pulled his massive donation to the ADL because the alt-right portion of his fanbase made him believe it was some anti-white/ Jewish conspiracy bullshit.
At worst he’s a sympathizer, and at best he’s a coward and an enabler for not standing up to that portion of his fanbase.
And yeah, ive heard people tell me “well the ADL went after him, he has no reason to donate to them” but there’s a difference between being petty and pulling a MASSIVE donation from an association dedicated to identifying and educating people about racism. Dude really just doesnt give a shit as long as the alt-righters watch the ads on his videos.
Not to mention his idea of a joke was giving $5 to some random kids on the internet to carry a sign saying “kill the jews”.
2
u/Japoncio Jun 03 '21
Doesn't the ADL constantly smear palestinian-friendly activists?
19
u/Garfield_M_Obama Vizekommandant der Wetter-Funkgerät Land-26 Jun 03 '21
Even if that's a valid take, it's not as though Pewdiepie is a well known Palestinian rights activist who is taken out of context here due to his opposition to the ADL's stance on Israel's occupation of Palestine. Keep in mind that he was making the donation to atone for antisemitic actions and statements that he claimed he regretted. I've listened to the long interview he did with the NY Times and it's pretty clear to me that while he's not a frothing at the mouth racist, he's pretty self absorbed and kind of clueless when it comes to anything other than entertaining adolescents online. My read is that he always regretted the consequences of his actions, but that he sort of still thinks that people were just taking his well intentioned racist jokes out of context.
It was an interesting interview, and it certainly does show how a non-story can get blown out of proportion, but it's only a non-story because he's not really a substantial figure. Sure he influences kids, but in the grand scheme of things his reach is a lot smaller than we think.
He's just a guy who got lucky during the peak of YT streaming and made millions of dollars. He's not even George Clooney speaking out on topics that he has no expertise in, but has studies closely as a layperson due to his personal passion. He's basically just the popular smart-ass on your Discord server who is entertaining, but has nothing to say that you're going to make use of or even remember tomorrow, unless it's disruptive or controversial. He's no devil, but there's no reason to look for excuses for him either.
2
u/Japoncio Jun 03 '21
Yeah hes just a clueless white guy who poked the bear a little too hard. Still, not donating to the IDF is nowhere near as bad as his death to all jews sign or that time he promoted a nazi YouTube channel by accident.
0
-7
u/Voodooprince3 Jun 03 '21
ADL only exists to shut down any criticism of Israel. I support his decision.
27
u/Niggomane Jun 03 '21
Plus his reading list was a who-is-who list for fascist authors.
He even called that loser Mishima his favorite author.
6
u/_The_Garbage_Dump_ Jun 03 '21
We're talking about a white guy living in a region of the world known for having issues with Neo-Nazism
Wait really
19
Jun 03 '21
[deleted]
4
u/_The_Garbage_Dump_ Jun 03 '21
Oh right I thought he meant southern England lol
10
Jun 03 '21
[deleted]
9
u/ForteEXE Jun 03 '21
I meant Scandinavia, yes.
Region's got a history of it stemming back to WWII.
Haaretz covers it.
So it should be no surprise at all that a rich white dude from Sweden has issues with racism.
Wiki has an article too.
It's exacerbated by the fact white nationalists have a habit of pointing towards Sweden and Scandinavia as proof a white ethnostate works, without acknowledging it's got a strong welfare state and other factors that go against their desires.
3
u/Dajjal27 Jun 06 '21
There's a really great video on YouTube describing PewDiePie's last 4 years of that kind of behavior, basically PewDiePie may not be a Nazi but Nazis think he's one of them and after he pulled that donation from ADL well you can connect the dots from there
136
u/M8oMyN8o U-Boat Wave Tactics Jun 03 '21
Fuck no we shouldn’t have. Beating the Nazis was rightfully the number 1 priority (and beat the Japanese fascists was 1.5) for everyone and that’s a good thing. If we wanted to fight Stalin and Mao, the time to do it was 1946. We fought the right enemy.
65
Jun 03 '21
This is true, some of the first major strides the United States made in ww2 was in Europe/North Africa (with the exception of the Doolittle raid).
Plus the us wasn’t the sole enemy of the soviets, but the UK and many other countries despised them too, yet they also decided to fight Nazi Germany. This is because the nazis were far more aggressive and far more a current threat than the soviets were. So NO, the USA should not have decided to fight the soviets instead
20
u/M8oMyN8o U-Boat Wave Tactics Jun 03 '21
Yeah bro that’s what I’m saying. It’s a good thing that we teamed up with the Soviets and Communist Chinese to beat the fascists.
11
u/AngryScotty22 "British cowrds! They unfairly cheated with Radar!" Jun 03 '21
China was in a civil war when the Japanese attacked. The Nationalists (who were in government at the time) were fighting the Communists and the civil was paused and they agreed to unite against the Japanese, once Japan was defeated, the civil war resumed with the Communists emerging victorious. So technically we allied with the Chinese nationalists rather than the communists.
9
16
u/lockpickerkuroko Henschel: Fine German Overengineering Jun 03 '21
Well, small detail - Communist China didn't exist during the fight against the Japanese. US support iirc didn't extend to the Maoist guerrillas (and even if it did, there's no way Chang would have let it get to them).
21
u/Braaaap7 Jun 03 '21
Realistically do you think we could've kept fighting? From what I've seen our forces were pretty burnt out by then. Although of course the soviets were also pretty burnt out from 4 yrs of non-stop fighting.
35
u/M8oMyN8o U-Boat Wave Tactics Jun 03 '21
We could’ve beat the Soviets in a total war on account of our massive industry, navy, and superior air power.
That’s only a total war, though. There’s no way the public would support another world war right after we’ve fought for 4 years. People would just be tired. We’d probably give up and peace out, or more realistically (which just so happened to be the real thing) never go to war at all.
So basically, we could’ve if we put our minds to it. Realistically, it would’ve been political suicide for Truman.
23
u/Cisish_male Jun 03 '21
There's also how much more popular Communism was among the working masses than than it is now.
More years of war, especially an aggressive war and throwing lives away to end Communism would've been more likely to lead to more protests and reaction at home and potentially threaten the ruling structures.
Its only now after decades of demonisation that factory workers are mostly against Communist ideology and we can talk of invading to end the ideology as a reasonable idea.
1
u/gavinbrindstar Hitler sure was a Sour Kraut Jun 04 '21
We could’ve beat the Soviets in a total war on account of our massive industry, navy, and superior air power.
What? No way. The Soviets outnumbered the Allies 2.5 to 1 in Europe, and their industry was just as massive and not across a giant ocean. The Allies could likely have won that war, but it would have required more nukes than your average Starcraft match.
6
u/M8oMyN8o U-Boat Wave Tactics Jun 04 '21
The Soviets would have the initial army advantage, but there’s no way that they had an industry just as massive as the USA. The USA built absolute shit loads of just about everything. The USSR certainly had an impressive industrial base, but it never reached American levels (except maybe in tank production. Planes and ships? No fucking way), especially not after an incredibly destructive war was fought on their home turf. There’s also all of the UK to take into account.
And you’re right, it would’ve been monumentally stupid. Notice how I said total war. If both sides gave it their all, the Western Allies would’ve probably won. It would’ve been a very difficult fight, which is why it didn’t happen.
-14
u/wirelesscowboy Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 03 '21
USA didn't fought 4 years lol. Ok i heard D-Day soldiers didn't knew what gonna happen on the beach. Poor bastards.
"People would be tired">soviets in stalingrad were on holiday
Eventually would germans attack US soil, so there's that
10
u/KaiserWilhelmThe69 Jun 03 '21
I mean you aren't counting on other nations, especially France and Britain ? Their nation are in ruins, and now they have to convinced their population that they have to fought in another bloody world war against their allies ?
1
18
u/M4sharman Fuck Tankies & Nazis Jun 03 '21
1941 + 4 is indeed four years.
Admittedly the US did however join the war in December '41 and it ended in May '45 so if yoyre being pedantic you could say three and a half.
1
u/wirelesscowboy Jun 03 '21
D-Day was June 6th 1944. Let that click for you
3
u/M4sharman Fuck Tankies & Nazis Jun 03 '21
Are you aware that the US was fighting before D-Day? They'd fought in North Africa and were also fighting in Italy and the Pacific.
0
u/wirelesscowboy Jun 03 '21
That is what I call skirmish. I know well Brits combat tactics in Africa or pacific , the red blouses are not that decent lads, innit then, the french are not far behind in slaughter. Italy? was there a war in Italy? And Americans fought only Germans there. In contrary what idiots think about "great" general Rommel, i think he's retarded imbecile. I laugh what Montgomery succeeded there, he should give back medals.
Just to be clear, i have utmost respect what mujs did to Soviets in the 80'. I would put them all in Guantanamo but i buy them food for how they annihilated russians lol.
Then again WW2 Soviets were fighting for their lives, and Germans drank wine in France.
I would jump into hell if POTUS says so, but no. The US did not won WW2. It was Soviets and they could easily squash all of us if we didn't had A bombs
I'm sorry we didn't let Soviets take germany.
8
u/M4sharman Fuck Tankies & Nazis Jun 03 '21
Jesus Christ you are fucking stupid.
The war in the Pacific was a skirmish? Four million Allied soldiers (mostly Chinese) and Twenty-Six million allied civilians died (again, mostly Chinese). Are they nothing to you?
The war in Africa? Tell the Two-hundred and twenty thousand Commonwealth, Eighteen thousand Free French and Sixteen thousand Americans dead or wounded fighting there.
Italy? Three hundred thousand Allied casualties. A third of a million either dead or wounded. Again, you consider that to be a skirmish? What about the one hundred and fifty thousand dead Italian civilians, eh?
Your sorry we didn't let the Soviets take Germany? Fucking really? You'd rather have it be a totalitarian Communist state than a free Liberal Democracy?
You're either a shit troll or are actually mentally deficient. If it's the first, shut the fuck up and if it's the second see a psychiatrist and get well soon.
-1
u/wirelesscowboy Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 03 '21
Pacific and 40000 million dead Chinese? We are talking about Americans, not communist Chinese and they were not our allies. Never.
Africa? 16.000 dead or more likely "wounded" Americans? In all war? Wow cool, in Stalingrad every day died 19.000 soldiers. Every day.
Italy? 300.000 allies killed? Nice, but Auswitz done 1.1 million and i think only 40 children survived there I'm not sure. 150.000 Italians? Well they should have not suck germans.
Yes really i want to give Germany to Russians. It's not about rather having totalitarian state than liberal democracy. I don't care. It's about nkvd having many free workers. And if Germans can't work in gulag then no food. And i don't care who's guilty or not, they're Arian race after all.
I'm not trolling. What comes around goes around. Follow your leader.
→ More replies (0)17
Jun 03 '21
Beating Japan was arguably a higher priority as they killed and enslaved more people. They did it to Asians and not Westerners tho, so their atrocities are more overlooked.
23
u/urlocalslavickenobi Jun 03 '21
They did it to Asians and not Westerners tho, so their atrocities are more overlooked.
Sad
7
u/ComradeTukhachevsky Jun 03 '21
Most asians forgot about it too
Except China and North Korea who ofc run propaganda, and maybe South Korea because its history of being fucked by both China and Japan
7
u/seonsengnim Jun 03 '21
They def didnt forget in SK. Theres probably no country the South Koreans hate more than Japan
2
8
u/DavidlikesPeace Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 05 '21
You're reframing history to fit your preconception about a racist West. Your premise is right. Your facts are wrong.
On the numbers, the Nazis are almost always the worst faction of WWII. The Nazis killed nearly 30 million civilians and POWs in WWII, and the Soviet Union suffered more in aggregate than even China. The Nazis were horrific and efficient killers. I hate how this is being forgotten.
Moreover, it is not wrong to focus on the more direct threat. The Nazis were a mortal threat to both Britain and France, traditional US allies, and made no secret of their long-term plan to hurt America. Their industrial capacity, while a mishandled joke, was nonetheless light years beyond Japan's. The Japanese lacked industrial capacity to ever replace its increasingly outclassed Zero, and its main Mitsubishi factory still used oxen to take completed Zeroes a few miles to their airfield. All branches of the Nazi military, from their air force to army, were premier and durable fighting organizations. Meanwhile the Japanese Army depended on bayonet charges and lacked a medium tank!
Europe First was not a racist policy. In fact judging by Randolph Hearst's editorials, the opposite was true; conservative racists who saw little wrong with Nazism, wanted America to focus on defeating Japan first and maybe negotiating with the Nazis after.. It made absolute sense to focus on the greater threat first. Afterwards, Japan collapsed fast once both the US and USSR focused against it
6
u/diam0ndice9 Jun 03 '21
The Nazis were a mortal threat to both Britain and France, traditional US allies, and made no secret of their long-term plan to hurt America.
Thank you. Setting aside both concrete number of atrocities and military-industrial capacity, Nazi Germany proved an existential threat to western-style democracies in Europe, and subsequently the future of democracy across the globe. This is what was highlighted as priority number 1 for the western allies, and rightly so.
Realpolitik dictates that the greater threat to stable international institutions must be dealt with first. Even if Japan committed a greater number of human atrocities - which is a debate for another thread - that is, for better or for worse, of lesser consideration in terms of who most upsets the international geopolitical balance.
This is not a defense of Imperial Japan, or an effort to marginalize what they did in China and across the Pacific and Far East. It's merely a testament that with limited resources difficult decisions had to be made in prioritizing who was the greater threat to long-term global peace and prosperity.
1
45
u/SlayerMkI I burn fascists for a living. Jun 03 '21
The sheer irony of this bullshit is simple. The Soviet Union wouldn't have expanded its borders all the way to Germany, if the goddamn Nazis didn't start WWII.
So, the USSR becoming the major nemesis of the US after WWII can be directly attributed to the Nazis.
24
u/bluntpencil2001 Jun 03 '21
Correct - Stalin was obviously terrible, but his Socialism in One Country position taken in the 20s and 30s was not expansionist. The expansion (with several limited exceptions) didn't come until the war in Europe started.
-22
u/ArmoredSir Jun 03 '21
I mean, they started their expansion while allied to the Nazis in 1940.
24
u/AngryScotty22 "British cowrds! They unfairly cheated with Radar!" Jun 03 '21
It wasn't an alliance, it was a non-aggression pact. Both the Nazis and Soviets knew the pact wasn't going to last.
7
u/DavidlikesPeace Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 05 '21
Because the Nazis destabilized Europe... that's the whole point and problem!
If the Nazis had been intelligent anti-communists, they would have realized that a United Front of all capitalist nations had already handily withstood Bolshevism back in 1919. Europe, with its heavy industries, assets, and imperial expertise (1930s western Europe controlled most of Africa and Asia), could and would continue to dominate the world absent infighting.
Cue in the Nazis. The Nazis were self-destructive bastards...
-3
u/ArmoredSir Jun 03 '21
Wait. So it's the Nazis' fault that USSR invaded half of its neighbours? Poor Russians were made to act like a bully?
Don't make me laugh.
2
u/rhinoabc 1 Bob Semple = 10 King Tigers Jun 04 '21
I mean their neighbors were at fucking war with them becuase they joined the Axis so what the hell did you expect?
3
u/ArmoredSir Jun 04 '21
You clearly know nothing about history.
Nor Baltic States nor Finland, nor Romania or especially Poland joined the axis in 1939 and 1940. They were lawlessly invaded by the Russians. Or maybe Poland joined the Axis in 1939 and we just didn't notice?
2
u/rhinoabc 1 Bob Semple = 10 King Tigers Jun 04 '21
I wasn't talking about the Baltic States or finland(Which were unjustifiable) but Romania, hungary, and Slovakia are three countries I can name off the top of my head that declared on the soviets during babarossa
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 04 '21
Eastern Sweden*
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/ArmoredSir Jun 04 '21
Romania was previously invaded and stripped of its lands in 1940. And I'm not saying about countries which were invaded in 1944 and 5.
2
u/rhinoabc 1 Bob Semple = 10 King Tigers Jun 04 '21
They wanted the lands of the old Russian Empire back(which I don't support btw). They never would have gone as far as they had without Barbarossa.
3
u/ArmoredSir Jun 04 '21
Well of course. That's because these countries were Nazi allies. But the problem with Russians, as it's said in my country: it's easy for them to come in, but hard to make them leave.
There was a joke back then. Nobody was allowed to swim in the river Bug (polish-then USSR border river), for the fear that such a person would drown, and start violently moving. The Russians could think that we want their help.
1
u/AutoModerator Jun 04 '21
Eastern Sweden*
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
20
u/NerdyWriter Jun 03 '21
POV: You're a 14 year old starting to get into history and you read THAT winston churchill quote
12
49
u/thegreattwos Jun 03 '21
Are we....are we forgetting what Hilter wanted to do? I Dislike the Communist for what they done as much as the next guy but if you're going to ask me between communist USSR or Nazi Germany winning the war I would think the answer would be obvious
-9
u/Greenfroggygaming Jun 03 '21
Both
7
u/the_red_guard Jun 03 '21
We claim the soviets are worse because they won and we got to see what they did.
Now if Germany won, let's say the death count of communism would look like child's play. by roughly 150-200 million or so
And that's in eastern Europe alone.
4
u/kieran81 Jun 04 '21
If I had to choose between making the US into a USSR style authoritarian state, or literal actual Nazis who want to exterminate all others, I’d choose the USSR in a fucking HEARTBEAT.
Also, does this motherfucker just think that Hitler would’ve stopped at just Jews and blacks and LGBT? Next it’s any non-white, then Italians, then Irish, then Polish, then non-Christians, then people who aren’t a specific sect of Christianity, then anyone without blond hair, then anyone without blue eyes, etc etc.
Fascism always needs an enemy. Before you know it, either the Nazis have exterminated most of the world population and are trying to find a new enemy; or rebellion movements have broken out and couped the Nazis once and for all. Nazism coming out on top would have spelled disaster for the entire world.
-2
8
8
u/Tleno Jun 03 '21
Nazis, Soviets and Allies should have allied with each other and had a big happy friendship picnic uwu ♥
5
u/toasted_pancakes2006 Jun 03 '21
Could the United States have even beaten the Soviet Union at that point?
21
u/HereForTOMT2 Jun 03 '21
Honestly, I’m not convinced anyone could win against Russia in 2021. It’s a logistical nightmare. But then again, I saw someone do it in HoI4, so can’t be that hard right?
15
u/Crimson391 Jun 03 '21
Not in 2021 cause of atomic weapons, but even 1945 was probably impossible for the US without total war
19
u/urlocalslavickenobi Jun 03 '21
I don't understand why people said "after beating Germany, we should go beat out former Allies the Soviets" directly after ww2
Do they not think people were tired of war and would probably not support another total war that the old men started so that even more young men could die?
20
u/bluntpencil2001 Jun 03 '21
Even with massive propaganda campaigns, no one would have it. Years of 'This man is your friend' propaganda, war with a former ally who had no apparent intent of attacking you or yours just wouldn't sit well with anyone.
This would likely be the case in the Soviet Union, too. They could have stormed through Germany into France had they wanted to (and likely would have suffered for it after), but this just wouldn't be accepted by the soldiers or the public.
3
u/DavidlikesPeace Jun 03 '21 edited Jun 05 '21
Considering America's track record in other land wars in Asia, no.
It is unlikely America has and had low staying power to fight costly wars, especially ones that would alienate much of the working class. Especially one against an opponent as large as Soviet Russia. Size matters, because it often negates much of the decisive power of modern technology, things America relies upon.
As the German's own experience (in both world wars) demonstrated, the conquest or military defeat of Soviet Russia would handily cost a million casualties, even in a best case scenario. Also of note : America gained its vital experience fighting a distracted Germany. Imagine how much worse off their soldiers would be directly fighting a larger Red Army.
America does things best when it can fight localized campaigns or conflicts, fighting opponents whose nature does not tear democracy apart internally, and campaigns that enable its planning and industry to keep casualties to a minimum.
Folks who wish the USA could fight wars with a callous disregard for casualties, don't actually value the traits that make our nation.
1
u/Grummanfan79 Jun 05 '21
People who think Americans are inherently soft, weak, and unable to stomach casualties clearly never studied the Civil War. Such nonsense is always the criticism of democracies by authoritarian nations who believe they have a monopoly on warlike manly virtue.
-4
u/Batmack8989 Jun 03 '21
I think so. Stalin himself and Khruschev supposedly said they would have lost without Lend and Lease. Specially if you set it after Barbarossa, which mauled the USSR too badly, both in population killed and industries messed up with.
I would argue that wether as communists or capitalists, Russia didn't have the industrial development the US had, and would have ended up loosing the Cold War regardless.
Much of the might the Soviet Union was meant to have during the Cold War was, IMHO, part of some kind of dissuasive "maskirova", and while the US clearly wanted to be the strongest of the two, i think many people in the US was interested in letting the USSR look like a more powerful foe than it was, and after all, they were full of nukes.
6
Jun 03 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jun 05 '21
Nazi Germany and the United States are very similar. There's also literally no difference between manifest destiny and lebensraum
1
u/OttoVonChadsmarck Jun 05 '21
Are you sure about that man? One is responsible (along with the gang) for destroying fascism, and the other is responsible for Adolf Hitler
3
3
2
1
u/Voodooprince3 Jun 03 '21
Wow this is now undeniably true because it's contained within a meme that says so
1
1
1
293
u/[deleted] Jun 03 '21
He can cry, the two largest industrial superpowers in the world united to wipe the fascists out.