These were the true anti-communists. The Western Allies were phony “anti-communists” who shot themselves in the foot by propping up the Soviets during the war. The Cold War was a consequence of that self-sabotage.
>>18291955>These were the true anti-communistsYou say it like it's a good thing.
>>18291955But on the other hand, it was the Germans during WW1 who sent Lenin to Russia and financed the Bolsheviks.
>>18291961Gotta give them props for at least trying to fix the mess they started. Besides, the Nazis had nothing to do with the bad decisions of their imperial predecessors.
>>18291960yes. fuck the sputnik, give back the opportunities I've lost because of the socialist republic.
>>18291966Are you not aware of the fact that Eastern Europe used to be unindustrialised, illiterate shithole before the commies took it over?
>>18291974listen, coward, I've heard too many times the bullshit your ilk spews, and you are still afraid to spell it out. what about industrialization? list the points of the argument, let it be evident to everyone how retarded it is.
>>18291955Correct
>>18291955The Soviets helped the Nazis rearm by hosting German weapons factories on their land.Then the Nazis literally made an alliance with the Soviets to split Eastern Europe between the two.
>>18292014That alliance was just a way for the Germans to buy themselves time to consolidate their position in Europe without worrying about a two front war and get the resources they needed to attack the Soviets, anyone can see that it wasn’t a genuine alliance as Barbarossa would later prove.
>>18292022They helped the Soviets consolidate their power in Eastern Europe. Cope.Go explain all this to a Latvian, how the Germans sold them out because of some 4D chess.
>>18291955>>18291997>pretends the german-ussr alliance never happenedClockwork.
>>18292278Yeah and the Germans definitely never intended to break it and the Nazi-Soviet war definitely never happened.
So anti-communist they were the first ones in the west to ally with communists for the purposes of destroying a non-communist nation and giving half of it to the communists.Just another instance of naziboos erasing the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact because it completely destroys their argument about the allies aiding and abetting communism. Nobody forced the nazis to team up with the soviets, but the nazis turned the soviets into an ally of Britain by attacking them. Britain was already at war with Germany and had been for years at that point, and then attacked the USSR, so naturally the nations currently at war with Germany would team up to better prosecute the war effort. That's what happens when you idiotically make war on more than one enemy at a time. But giving away Polish land to the USSR? That's on Germany. 100% their fault.
>>18291955>socialism:/>socialism, racist:)
>>18291974This argument ignores the latent industrial potential that was being expanded upon by the Soviets, it is not like they came into Eastern Europe and gave life to the land as they did in, say, the remote interior of Russia (ignore the Aral sea). Russia itself a few decades prior was in a similar state, a few agricultural reforms and industry would flow in to make the peasants into proles, in fact this process began before the Bolsheviks took over. They then unceremoniously took credit for this inevitable change and then created an economic timebomb by myopically operating at an industrial surplus for the next 40 years. Their Eastern European puppets followed suit, also with similar (relative) economic potential that would be put towards achieving space communism through the production of apartment blocks, Kalashnikovs, and tractors.
>>18291966if it werent for the socialist republics of eastern europe then they would have all been directly colonised and raped by the european superpowers after the fall of the russian empire (just as they had done everywhere else there was resources and a weaker population), and since the fall of thee socialist states in eastern europe, these countries have become raped and pillaged by the european superpowers, keeping them poor after its collapse.
>>18291955The nazis are the reason the fucking commies got to take over half of Europe in the first place.
>>18291955>Muh based Anti-communists kill children and rape women
>>18291966>WHITEY BE ON DA MOON N SHEEEITyou’d still be a failure even in the most capitalist place on earth
>>18291961Yes, but had Germany not surrendered in 1918, they would have kept the communists out of Poland, Belarus, Ukraine and the Baltics, essentially anything west of Moscow
>>18291955The Germans were just as guilty of siding with the communists for the benefits of their self-interests, as the allies were.And the allies successfully defeated the USSR in 1990s, and without killing 30 million civilians.
>>18292022>That alliance was just a way for the Germans to buy themselves time to consolidate their position in EuropeWhy are you excusing the pragmatic benefits when it involves the Germans, but not the allies?You're clearly biased. Understand that and stfu.
>>18292293It always puzzles me how neonazies tries to frame ww2 as reactionary and incidental, and even Operation Barbarossa being something that was forced out of necessity.Yet in the immedate other discussion they argue that a worlf war and Barbarossa was pre-planned even before 1939, just so they can excuse themselves out of the Molotov-Ribbentrop fuckery that gave the communists 1/3 of the continent.You guys are never consistent. You argue whichever position is the most convenient for the current discussion. It's such a faggotry thing to do and any rational person will immediately see through this, hence why it's retarded to even support your side of the argument.Do better.
>>18291955In the 30's during the rise of fascism in Europe and Japan the US empathized with the communist in China during its war with Japan. Churches in the US spread the good word about the just struggle of the communist in China along with politicians and military/state department attaches. Saying the communist struggle was the same as the American struggle during its revolution and painted communism to the American public as a democratic struggle.
>>18292976The Western Allies were the ones who gave the Soviets enough lend lease to pull that off. Not to mention how they tied down German men and resources in the Italian and Western European fronts.
>>18291955Behold, anti-communism.
>>18293219>sourceless quotesCome back when you have the sources.Also socialism doesn't necessarily mean Marxism
>>18293215He is right tho.Without the Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa, there wouldnt be a USSR stretching from Berlin to Budapest to Sofia to Riga.Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa are the two key conditions for this. Remove them, and you have a preserved Europe. Hitlers government are the ones who sets everything in motion.The only argument you can make, is that the allies should simply have ceased/paused their war on Germany when Hitler decided to invade the USSR, because this is what is most convenient for Hitler if they do so. It may allow Hitler a chance of winning the war.
>>18293300The Western Allies should have just not given the Soviets any lend lease. Let the Germans and Soviets bleed each other dry.
>>18293330That's exactly what Truman proposed back in 1941
>>18291960>Posts something that literally wouldn’t have been possible without the nazis
>>1829293821st century Poland and Czechia are literally richer and more civilized than they’ve ever been in their entire history.
>>18291955>... it would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism.— Joseph GoebbelsHe was right. Europe was much better off under communism than it has been under capitalism.>>18293354Imagine being this brainwashed.
>>18292938>and since the fall of thee socialist states in eastern europe, these countries have become raped and pillaged by the european superpowers, keeping them poor after its collapse.Are you retarded?
>>18293359>He says that while there’s evidence that the Nazis were surrendering in droves in the West and desperately looking for a separate peace with the Western Allies so they could focus on fighting the Soviets.
>>18293330What nonsense is this.Let me break it down for you.1. There was a real fear that the USSR would collapse in 1942. It was the reason why USA decided on the 'Germany First' strategy. To suggest that they should begin tiptoeing on their commitments just because they (according to you) should have been able to unfuck the eventual outcome of Hitlers debacle, with surgical precision, otherwise they (the allies) will be held accountable in retrospective, even when it clearly wasnt obvious at the time. It's such an absurd argument to make.2. Lend-Lease had a two-fold purpose. Not only to show commitment to the war among allies, but also to spare the western allies from a bloody and prolonged war.Lend-Lease gave the USSR the means to take the fight to the Germans. This means that Wehrmacht will be forced to commit to overwhelming majority of their forces in the east. This means that the allies are actually achieving what you're proposing, because it makes the Eastern Front more destructive and bloody, while the Western Front becomes relatively mild. This is desired by the allies as well, because for every German soldier shooting at a Russian soldier means there is one less German soldier shooting at an American soldier.It was Strategically pragmatic in almost every conceivable way.3. If the allies had started to tiptoe with their commitment to the USSR as the war continues, even in 1943 and onwards, there is a real chance that Stalin will see through this scheme and begin entertain the idea of a seperate peace with Hitler, something the western powers absolutely feared. That's why almost every summit meeting held by the allies and the USSR was to reaffirm their commitment not to sign a seperate peace with Germany.The goal of the allies was the end the war as soon as possible, with as few casualties as possible. For as long as the war continues, the world becomes increasingly destabilized. By 1945 there were risk of famines on nearly every continent.
>>18291960>bare bones beeping device that got rushed out so they could say they were firstLame. The US sent the first actually useful satellite up 4 months later.
>>18293382>The goal of the allies was the end the war as soon as possible, with as few casualties as possible.If that was their goal then a settlement in 40 would have entirely prevented most of the fighting, the goal of the allies (inasmuch as they were officially coordinating) was that the Germans and Soviets expend all of their respective strength on each other. This is basically what happened and several generations of people were either directly or indirectly effected for the remainder of the 20th century. It was a bloodletting that was entirely preventable and we are living with the consequences of this decision to this day.
>>18293918>If that was their goal then a settlement in 40 would have entirely prevented most of the fightingNo it's not the same, because a settlement in 1940 means that Britain capitulates. It's the opposite of victory.I dont know if you're low IQ or just baiting, but how can you talk about the significance of Lend-Lease, which was entirely a US effort, and then answer it by what they should have done in the early years of the war, before USA had even joined, when the circumstances were entirely different because at that point it was a conflict strictly between Britain and GermanyAgain, the allies wanted to win the war, not a compromiseAnd they wanted to win with as less casualties and prolongment as possible, but they're not just going to abandon the war altogether for this reason>the goal of the allies (inasmuch as they were officially coordinating) was that the Germans and Soviets expend all of their respective strength on each otherDo I have to repeat myself? At the time it seemed like Germany was going to win against the USSR during 1941 and 1942. Even the Germans believed they wouldEven today historians may argue that the Soviets wouldnt have lasted without allied aid and commitment.And if the allies begin to tiptoe and waver their support fpr the Soviets mid-war, then there is a real risk that the alliance may fracture completely and Stalin may seek a seperate peace with Germany. In fact, this was what the Germans were hoping for from 1943-45.It's far more logical to simply stay commited to the task. The only ones who began to think otherwise were the British.> It was a bloodletting that was entirely preventable and we are living with the consequences of this decision to this day.Preventable, as in Hitler doesnt approach Stalin with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and Hitler does not launch Barbarossa.Everyone else is just you shifting the accountability on the allies for failure to surgically course-correct the consequences of Hitlers actions.
>>18294109>Everyone else is just you shifting the accountability on the allies for failure to surgically course-correct the consequences of Hitlers actions.Everything else*
>>18293037Weren’t the demographic losses that the USSR suffered in WW2 a factor in its eventual collapse?
>>18291961This is a false conspiracy theory.
>>18294109>No it's not the same, because a settlement in 1940 means that Britain capitulates. It's the opposite of victory.Britain de-facto lost the second world war because it fought in it, the empire fell for many reasons but this war saw them ransoming many strategic reserves to the U.S. Losing the war in 40 certainly would have been better for Britain than winning it in 45, as recent history has shown. This is tangential though.>I dont know if you're low IQ or just baiting, but how can you talk about the significance of Lend-Lease, which was entirely a US effort, and then answer it by what they should have done in the early years of the warThis is why I mentioned that they weren't really officially coordinating, but the idea that the U.S had their heart set on neutrality right up until pearl harbor is a bit fantastic of an idea, no? At the very least they were carefully monitoring Japan's moves in the pacific. >Do I have to repeat myself? At the time it seemed like Germany was going to win against the USSR during 1941 and 1942.While this is true I think we are talking past one another, the Germans both thought they were going to win (along with the rest of the world) and the U.S was still very content to allow this to go into a long-war scenario. I believe that early on Roosevelt said something to the effect of "if the Soviets start winning we will help the Germans" though it was in passing you might have to check it. >Preventable, as in Hitler doesnt approach Stalin with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and Hitler does not launch Barbarossa.In both these scenarios Hitler and/or the OKH/OKW/etcetera did kind of have their hand(s) forced. Molotov-Ribbentrop was a geo-strategic maneuver to secure their eastern flank which the western allies would have been all to content to take advantage of and they were in the process of doing exactly that before the pact. As to Barbarossa it is not like the Soviets would have sat quietly with the NAP forever.
>>18294109cont.>Preventable, as in Hitler doesnt approach Stalin with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, and Hitler does not launch BarbarossaWhile Barbarossa wasn't an immediate pre-emptive attack Germany, the U.K, the USSR, and pretty much the rest of the world understood that the Soviets were solidifying their military position to roll over Germany in much the same way Germany had overwhelmed France. Pair that with the plentiful natural resources and immense strategic reserves of war material that the Soviets maintained it would probably have been a fairly short affair, doubly so because the Germans would likely have been occupied with coastal raids, the battle of the Atlantic, and the Mediterranean had Barb not occurred. The only sensible position for the German military planners was to seize the initiative and hopefully catch Russia on the backfoot, which they did, but they failed to maintain it. Hitler's errors were many but that really started to become in issue in the later years of the war, from Case Blue on I'd say, with some of the most crucial mistakes being made in 43 and 44.
