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 😂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know that was more so Russia right?
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 😂
Anticommunists never stop rewriting history to make the nazis look less bad
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…
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.
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.
“made a deal with Hitler”
What the fuck do you think appeasement was?
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!
I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn’t liberate Paris though.
It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice
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.
He said suffered more, not “did more of the work”. You added that part.
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.