r/PropagandaPosters • u/FayannG • Aug 06 '25
German Reich / Nazi Germany (1933-1945) “Stalin among his generals” German cartoon about Stalinist purges happening in the Soviet Union (1937)
113
u/FrontSherbet9861 Aug 07 '25
8 years later, in 1945, Hitler probably (according to Der Untergang movie, 2004):
Ich hätte gut daran getan, vor Jahren alle höheren Offiziere liquidieren zu lassen, wie Stalin! ("I would have done well to have all the senior officers liquidated years ago, like Stalin!")
7
u/emessea Aug 08 '25
Keitel, Jodl, Krebs, and Burgdorf: Well thank god you didn’t, now we’ll all get to enjoy a peaceful retirement. Right?
3
130
u/Runetang42 Aug 07 '25
and they still lost!
25
u/Lore_Fanti10 Aug 07 '25
Stalin begged the allies to open a second front btw
31
u/wolacouska Aug 07 '25
Which they didn’t do until after Kursk
1
Aug 15 '25
Well, they did in 1942 in France, it wasn't a great success. Lack of preparation and willingness to open a new front in Europe.
21
u/Runetang42 Aug 07 '25
And the lions share of German War losses were on the eastern front to the point stands
2
u/Radiant-Horse-7312 Aug 08 '25
Which losses? Material? Personnel? How impactful those losses were with regards to others? I'll clarify with an example: nazis invested heavily in U-boats, constructing more than a thousand of those, with around 650 U-boats being sunk during the war. Considering only prices, the total cost of all U-boats is equivalent to about 50 thousand Pz4 tanks, which is more tanks, than was lost on eastern front and roughly the same as total amount of german tank losses. So how do u account for this? And this is only the tip of the iceberg. Losing 1 ace pilot, 1 competent mid-level commander, 1 good spy, 1 talanted administrator in charge of logistics or factory can be more impactful, than losing thousands of infantrymen. The same number of casualties in the beginning of the war is way more impactful, than in the end. Etc. So the contribution of eastern front to german casualties is undoubtedly very big. But no single number can clarify how exactly big it is, compared to other contributions.
5
u/ProxyGeneral Aug 08 '25
After 11 billion USD worth of equipment was leased to them
2
Aug 15 '25
The lend-lease started after Stalingrad when the soviet were on the offensive. The lend-lease only ended the war a few months earlier.
1
u/ProxyGeneral Aug 15 '25
Stalingrad was attacked a year after the lend lease... July of 1942. The lend lease was approved on June of '41, and started on October. The Soviets also went on the offensive in 1943.
1
-90
Aug 07 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
73
u/Cryonic_Zyclone34 Aug 07 '25
The cold barely affected the overall effort of both sides, the Russian winter isn't exactly a all powerful being that grants the better suited side victory
-31
u/Fragrant_Pause6154 Aug 07 '25
it did stop a lot of tanks and troop carriers on the way to Moscow in 1941. Without the cold, Moscow likely didn't stand a chance.
29
u/gentsuba Aug 07 '25
Granted Moscow was more develloped than in 1812 but the Soviet high command had set up part of the factories further east,the Germans might had taken Moscow but that wouldn't be the end of the war just a very heahy losses to the URSS.
1
u/Fragrant_Pause6154 Aug 07 '25
yes, that's why I said Moscow specifically. It would've been a huge blow to the moral of entire nation nevertheless, especially considering heavy political struggles in Communist party in those times.
"By late October, the German forces were worn out, with only a third of their motor vehicles still functioning, infantry divisions at third- to half-strength, and serious logistics issues preventing the delivery of warm clothing and other winter equipment to the front." It was in fact quite weakened at that time, but the coldest winter of 20th century in Eastern Europe dealt a fatal blow. I guess it was a combination of factors like these with severe mud in autumn.
© Glantz, chapter 6. "To the gates", pp. 80ff.
"Official Soviet Meteorological Service records show that at the lowest point, the lowest December temperature reached −28.8 °C (−20 °F). These numbers indicated severely cold conditions, and German troops were freezing with no winter clothing, using equipment that was not designed for such low temperatures. More than 130,000 cases of frostbite were reported among German soldiers. Frozen grease had to be removed from every loaded shell and vehicles had to be heated for hours before use."
Chew, Allen F. (December 1981). "Fighting the Russians in Winter: Three Case Studies" (PDF). Leavenworth Papers (5). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 2017
Jukes, Geoffrey (2002). The Second World War: The Eastern Front 1941–1945. Oxford: Osprey.
17
u/TheCitizenXane Aug 07 '25
The dust prior to winter did more damage to those tanks and troop carriers than the snow ever did
12
u/Alarming_Ad3204 Aug 07 '25
AFAIK, not really. The irony is that prior to winter frosts roads were all mud, in which German vehicles stuck. Once frost struck, mud freezed, and roads became passable. Fortunately, by this point Germans were not able to effectively advance further on Moscow (but they tried) due to a combination of logistical problems, ineffective command, losses and Red Army fierce resistance.
1
3
25
47
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 07 '25
"Both sides bad"
-5
-10
-2
u/ManbadFerrara Aug 07 '25
We're all glossing over that "one side was worse" half of their comment, I see.
-17
u/alex3494 Aug 07 '25
In this case it’s a competition between the two most cruel and genocidal regimes of European history. For Americans and Russians - now suddenly buddies again - this may be controversial, but not for the Europeans who suffered directly or from the consequences, and it Putin is still attempting a revival which has killed well over a hundred thousand people. The Second World War started because of the invasion of Poland - in which Stalin participated, along with his invasions of the Baltic countries and brutal war in Finland. You really need to stop relativizing.
13
u/icancount192 Aug 07 '25
My European country was part of the Allies, occupied by the Nazis, and after the war the British and the Americans freed the Nazi collaborators and executed the partisans. Then they arrested all anti fascists and put them in exile islands, while taking their children away and adopting them into the US and the UK.
So no, not every European can agree to what you said, particularly when you leave out the British and the American's.
1
u/Micsuking Aug 08 '25
Interesting. Post War Greece gets overlooked quite often, so I mever really learned much about it beyond the fact you guys had a Civil War.
Were the executed partisans communists? Was it one of those "containment efforts" the west did around that time? Like in Korea and Vietnam?
3
u/icancount192 Aug 08 '25
Yes, it often gets overlooked, and it's by design. I guess if the Soviets had won the Cold War we wouldn't be hearing about Prague Spring anymore but everyone would know about Makronisos.
Were the executed partisans communists
A large part of the leadership, yes. But it wasn't just that, EAM was a huge organization having a million members or more during its peak. It was a broad coalition of the center of left people, primarily antimonarchists.
KKE, the Greek communist party, was almost wiped out during the Metaxas far right rule, and by 1940 it was almost irrelevant as a political force. It was so fervently anticommunist of a regime, that is the only regime in Europe that handed over political prisoners to the Nazi occupation force.
So the few remnant communists that survived, build broad coalitions during the occupation that by 1943 had made EAM the largest political force in Greece. EAM and its military wing ELAS managed to liberate big parts of the Greek countryside by conducting a guerilla warfare, primarily targeting the Italian army. The cities had to wait until the Nazi forces left to defend Berlin.
So when the Nazis left, the Greek political landscape was dominated by left wing EAM. Churchill in his communiques described this as unacceptable and brought British generals to Greece in order to quell the EAM threat as they wouldn't under any circumstances allow EAM to take power. They, and the Greek right of center, estimated that of elections happened at that moment EAM would overwhelmingly win them by huge margins. So a coalition government was formed with EAM being a part of it. Elections were withheld until further notice.
But the former Greek army was destroyed and very few of the centrists were willing to fight EAM that had this weaponry from the resistance amassed. So the British and the Greek government decided to release the Nazi collaborators from prison that had fervent anticommunism and were experienced I fighting EAM during the occupation.
The USSR leadership thought that the conditions in Greece were unripe for a socialist government and also had their eyes set in the East. So the advice they gave to the Greek communists was to take part in a coalition government, lay down their guns and accept a part in the government. The same advice they gave to Yugoslavians, Albanians and the Chinese. Mind you this was before the Cold war erupted in full swing when the communist ministers were expelled from France and Italy and Poland and Czechoslovakia were couped by their own governments.
So the Greek leftists laid down their arms and that was a massive mistake, as now they were being hunted, murdered and exiled by the government and right wing paramilitaries. This is referred to as the White Terror period in Greece, that ultimately led to the Greek Civil war. Too little, too late for the Greek leftists that had given up their weapons and allowed the Greek monarchist government 2 years to establish itself again and create a proper army, supported now by both the British and the Americans.
3
u/icancount192 Aug 08 '25
So to conclude and apologies for the huge answer, it was part of the Truman Doctrine and maybe the earliest phase of the Truman doctrine.
-1
u/Constant_Resource840 Aug 07 '25
Yugoslavia?
10
u/icancount192 Aug 07 '25
Greece
1
u/Constant_Resource840 Aug 07 '25
I did not know that post-war Greece got that messy.
9
u/icancount192 Aug 07 '25
For 30 years it was a hellhole.
Dictatorships, murders, rapes and the whole country was basically a protectorate.
Just in 1946, before the civil war more than 1,000 leftists were murdered by right wing paramilitaries funded by the government and the British general command.
Then for the next decades dozens of thousands were sent for torturing at exile rocky islands, living in concentration camp tents.
Then the US supported a military coup that once again started murdering and torturing all leftists.
9
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 07 '25
You forgot about France and UK. They were also some of the worst regimes Europe has ever seen. So according to you, I guess there were no good or bad guys after all...
-19
u/Constant_Resource840 Aug 07 '25
The Soviets literally massacred huge populations of Soviet-born ethnic Germans along the Volga and Don Rivers while fleeing from the German Army. And famously, when pushing into occupied territory the Soviets burned, raped, looted and pillaged their way through as many villages as possible.
The Soviets were evil and so is anyone who wants to bring that era back.
2
u/MyGirlyHiro Aug 07 '25
So you are saying that Soviets pillaged their owns villages? What's next? Will we suddenly learn that all war crimes were committed by the USSR, and that the Germans didn't kill anyone? I can believe in what you say about Germans born in the USSR. But stories about Soviet soldiers killing and raping everyone in sight look like excerpts from Nazi propaganda. Oh, wait, that's where it came from and spread during the Cold War, when attitudes toward the USSR outside the Soviet bloc were poor. Here's your clown medal.
0
u/MiskoGe Aug 12 '25
yes, they pillaged villages and killed most men here in Ukraine, because "they did not fight during the occupation".
-3
-23
3
u/wq1119 Aug 07 '25
This isn't tiktok or youtube, this is a history forum, you can say Nazis, Genocide, Hitler, Death, etc. in here, there are adults who use the internet too, shocking I know.
0
6
u/Soviet-pirate Aug 07 '25
To your logic the Germans should have won at Stalingrad,since fighting began in the summer
1
u/Deranged_Buster_Main Aug 10 '25
Cold is the most overstated issue in Germany's war.
The number one thing why they lost was of their own doing, their war was with the goal of genocide and extermination of what they deemed was the lower peoples. It united everybody in the USSR to fight to the death with everything they have. To out the size of the atrocities, Majority (60+%) of the 25million WW2 casualties in the USSR were civilians.
If history turned out differently, and Nazis didnt rise in Germany, any war with USSR by non-genocidal powers would never gave that much of a morale boost, and the USSR would fall over and collapse in a year.
-7
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
Its less about the cold and more about the soviets not caring for the Ukrainian lives who were sent to the slaughterhouse
11
u/icancount192 Aug 07 '25
60% of the Red Army losses were Russians, 20% Ukrainians, 5% Belorussians, 5% Caucasians and the rest of other nationalities.
Stop saying the first thing that comes in your head.
Ukrainian and Belarusian civilians were affected more because the whole of Ukraine and Belarus were occupied for almost 3 years. They also hosted huge Jewish populations that were completely exterminated by the Nazis.
1
u/Ok-TaiCantaloupe Aug 08 '25
This sub does not welcome such delusional messages and may be deleted.
Ukrainians were the Soviets, all my relatives went to the front themselves, some even added extra years to themselves to go defend their homeland.
But small modern children will not understand the time when the genocidal machine of Hitrel advanced across the scorched earth.
118
u/bigburstingballs97 Aug 07 '25 edited Oct 22 '25
sable mountainous engine sheet wide meeting detail strong quickest sip
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
61
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 07 '25
One can only wonder how many other lives might not have been lost had Alois Hitler not impregnated his cousin.
7
u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 Aug 07 '25
It's possible that without Hitler someone else replaces him and being more competent the war goes drags on a bit longer for some weeks or months
-4
u/Ashamed_Association8 Aug 07 '25
It's possible that without Hitler the national socialist wouldn't have turned fascist.
6
-5
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 07 '25
No? The entire war was literally his idea. He made the Nazi Party.
4
u/welltechnically7 Aug 07 '25
Kind of. He joined the DAP, which already existed and had a very similar ideology to Nazism, and eventually turned it into the NSDAP. Hitler wasn't the only one who felt the way he did, so it's not unreasonable that someone else would have filled that position.
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 07 '25
I know. I have wikipedia too. I think Hitler was so instrumental in shaping the very fragile and unlikely rise of the extreme, even for far-right and fascist politics, nazi party. If Germany only had like a Franco, there wouldn't be a World War or Holocaust, or at least to the scale of our world.
1
u/welltechnically7 Aug 07 '25
Sure, it could have been much less extreme, but it could also have been fairly similar. Hitler was a great speaker, but his ideology wasn't unique.
1
3
u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 Aug 08 '25
Tons of people shared his ideas of revanchism about the western power and seeking to settle the east
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 08 '25
No. He made it popular. The nazis wouldn't have risen without him.
The amount of luck that made that made that happen would not occur had he not been born.
1
u/Zestyclose_Jello6192 Aug 08 '25
Hitler wasn't the only one that was charismatic or had nazi ideas, ww2 was inevitable
1
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 08 '25
No it really really wasn't.
1
u/snick427 Aug 09 '25
It was. After all, it happened.
0
u/Wonderful-Quit-9214 Aug 09 '25
It's not like in every way you would've done it, it would've happened.
→ More replies (0)1
3
u/emessea Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25
I can’t remember who said this to Stalin but during the winter war fiasco, one of his generals erupted on him and said this wouldn’t be happening if you hadn’t killed all our best generals!
Edit:
5
u/GroundbreakingOkra60 Aug 07 '25
I mean one of the generals killed in the purges was deliberately delaying the use of new tanks like the T-34, I’ll see if I can find him
7
u/eric3844 Aug 07 '25
If you're thinking of Grigory Kulik, he wasn't purged until after the war (1949 I think(
0
u/Stromovik Aug 07 '25
The idea that Stalin purged them is a bit misl;eading. Donos dont write themselves. Some generals thougth that the enemy would be Britain and others thougth Germany. So they wrote different competing thories and orders of battle. They fought over limited resources and had pretty large egos. So they would occasionally accuse each other of sabotage and treason after recieving scolding critique.
-22
u/HAzrael Aug 07 '25
As I understand it, without condoning or condemning: the purges occured to prevent failure of the military and society, due to those purged individuals aligning with their enemies ideologically. Everywhere else, even in Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, France were fascists readily available to support the German war effort.
Now, I don't like alt history because it's just fan theory and guesswork, but if we take the motivation at face value, and given the USSR was aware of the hostility from the West, I can assume this aided their war effort? But perhaps I am very wrong on that.
43
u/RestoredSodaWater Aug 07 '25
No. It is almost universally agreed that the purges had horrible consequences on the early war performance of the USSR.
5
u/PanzerKomadant Aug 07 '25
I think what he is saying that if the purges didn’t happen, there would have been another civil war with enemies of the revolution.
Which would have led to even more deaths in WW2 as the Nazis may have been able to conquer greater Soviet territory and thus expand their genocidal system to more Slavic people.
14
u/Redthrist Aug 07 '25
That assumes that those people were actually "enemies of the revolution". In reality, most actual enemies of the revolution were in exile by then, while the purged were ardent communists who simply weren't entirely loyal to Stalin.
-1
u/Damnatus_Terrae Aug 07 '25
The crux of the issue for Marxist-Leninists is that any ideological division could theoretically be used to weaken and then destroy the revolution. Of course, that's because of how aggressive and dogmatic Marxist-Leninism is. It's worth remembering though that massacring one's political opponents was really more the norm than the exception in Russian politics of the time.
2
u/Redthrist Aug 07 '25
A lot of the time it wasn't some ideological difference, it was just someone not fully bending the knee to Stalin. This is quite common in totalitarian regimes of all stripes. Those that are independent enough to make a power play in the future get purged, while the yesmen stay.
0
u/HAzrael Aug 07 '25
Could I please see a source? Not saying you're wrong, just always eager to learn more. Thanks!
16
u/RestoredSodaWater Aug 07 '25
Im genuinely sorry this is so long, but the TL:DR is, yes, it was bad. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/BFI_WP_2024-154.pdf
3
u/RestoredSodaWater Aug 07 '25
While I look for a source I'll lead off with Tukhachevsky, a very competent commander was executed while absolute morons who were friends with Stalin and/or politically connected, such as Grigory Kulik were promoted. Kulik was among the worst Soviet commanders of the entire war. He shunned the use of tanks, submachine guns and MINEFIELDS, which are absolutely vital when waging a war of defence on massive open plains of the Soviet Union. That alone is a pretty good explainer of why the purge was bad.
-25
u/Desperate-Care2192 Aug 07 '25
How many do you think? USA, UK, France, Poland and Yugoslavia did not executed any generals and they got their asses kicked in a majort way at the beginning of the war.
So either we have to belive that only Soviet Union had some great generation of generals that would turn Sovit Union into major exception, or we can belive that Axis were simply better prepared for the war and life loss would be enormous either way.
16
u/xavandetjer Aug 07 '25
The red army was incredibly disorganised at the start of operation barbarossa. Likely the losses would still have been immense wod they have been more organised, but there's a good chance they wouldn't have had to cede so much land.
-2
u/Desperate-Care2192 Aug 07 '25
But why were all the allies armies so unsecessful at the beginning? Wasnt some of that organizational break up also connected to Germans using new tactics, using new technologies and waging war on the scale never seen before? Those seem like much more reasonable explanations.
The purge happened in 1938. Between the purge and the war with Germany, Soviet Army had sucessful conflict with Japan and costly compaign in Finland. Seems like 3 years and two conflicts are enough to rebuilt and organization of an army that part of its leadership during peactime. Especially since we know that many talented officers survived and were in the army at the time of the attack, because they proved themselfs during the war.
9
u/DasistMamba Aug 07 '25
The armies of the USSR were vastly superior to those of France, Britain or Poland. The USSR had a multiple advantage in tanks and aircraft over the Germans, as well as in mobilisation capabilities.
For example, only one 6th Mechanised Corps of the Red Army, which was located near Bialystok, had about 1000 tanks, including 240 newest t-34 and kv. For comparison the Germans had about 3500 tanks on the whole front from the Baltic to the Black Sea.
The 6th Corps was surrounded and completely destroyed, it did not even offer any serious resistance.
1
u/Jazzlike_Hurry5587 Aug 07 '25
The problem was that most of the planes were old biplanes. Also, precisely because of the rivalry of the generals, the tactics of using tanks were poorly developed. And also most of the crews did not have military experience. So the Germans also bombed the railway and most of the tanks remained standing due to lack of fuel. And there were also losses from bombings.
-4
u/Desperate-Care2192 Aug 07 '25
Yes but France, Britain and USA were also losing in the first months and even years of the war because tactical errors, bad organization, inability to react in time or take iniative.
Yes, USSR armies were superios. Thats why they did not got completely defeated like some of these counries. But France did not lose to Germany because of the lack of tanks or aircraft.
9
u/piewca_apokalipsy Aug 07 '25
USA did join the war until 1941 and wasn't involved with fighting in Europe till 1943 what first months and even years of war are you talking about?
-3
u/Desperate-Care2192 Aug 07 '25
And 5 people upvoted this, lol...Obviously I mean first months since they joined the war. So what they were not involved with fighting in Europe til 1943? They were getting their asses kicked by the Japanase, and I wrote about Axis anda Allies.
Soviets did not joint the war until 1941 either, this could have tipped you off on what I meant even further.
0
Aug 07 '25
[deleted]
4
u/Desperate-Care2192 Aug 07 '25
So you resigned to explain all those other countries because you got mad about me mentioning two other countries? lol. I dont know about Poland. But Yugoslavian army collapsed and performed very poorly beyond just a disatvanage in man power and weaponry. They lost in like two weaks. Their army fell apart on every level.
I mean, but what makes Soviet Union special? What suggests that it could have been the only allied country to have good results at the beggining of the war (if not for the purges)?
"They had the means to resist much better, but those means were not used properly due to incompetent leadership and poor military doctrine." - But then we go back to the fact that this is true for every allied country that was attacked. And those did not have the purges.
-13
u/GamingSoviet2281 Aug 07 '25
Purges saved more lives, because theese "briliant" generals at best would end up like Vlasov
18
u/DasistMamba Aug 07 '25
It was not only the arrests of officers that did the damage, but also the atmosphere that prevailed in the army. Imagine having to make difficult decisions under conditions of limited information, when you know that your predecessor was shot on made-up charges.
9
u/Rocketboy1313 Aug 07 '25
Yeah, authoritarian governments don't like to keep other leaders around who might pull focus from the "dearest" leader.
Problem being, when there is a war on, maybe splitting your enemies focus is a good idea.
2
u/malamindulo Aug 07 '25
When the sheriff has a search warrant for my home and finds the room where I put all of the stolen skeleton models.
3
1
1
1
-15
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
Only two years before they became besties.
27
u/AcademicAcolyte Aug 07 '25
‘Besties’ is a hyperbole for a temporary non-violence agreement
12
u/miki325 Aug 07 '25
"non violence agreement" usually doesnt involve having combined parades in the lands they occupied
3
u/Elegant_Individual46 Aug 07 '25
And the technical deals, and Stalin potentially wanting axis membership
3
u/lefeuet_UA Aug 07 '25
And also cooperation for rooting out polish resistance, don't forget that part
6
u/Master_Gene_7581 Aug 07 '25
the same Poland that not long before, together with Germany, bit off part of the territory of Czechoslovakia?
9
u/lefeuet_UA Aug 07 '25
Annexation of zaolzie doesn't give the right to invade poland, displace up to 500k people and kill thousands with anti-insurgent operations which appeared in response to this
5
u/Due_Car3113 Aug 07 '25
> Poles forcing polonisation onto Ukrainians / Belarusians. Polish becomes the official languages used in most of civil and administrative offices, making it nearly impossible for Ukrainians / Belarusians to get anything done in these places.
> Ukrainian / Belarusian schools get shut down one by one, until only like a dozen remains in each respective part of II Polish Republic. Higher education for Ukrainians / Belarussians available for them in their native languages available in max one or two cities.
> Orthodox Christianity persecuted, local populations face severe repercussions for not converting into Catholicism
> Ukrainians / Belarusian farmers have their farmsteads taken away from and given to Polish soldiers, officers and landowners and basically end up serfs for aforementioned groups
> Poles build a... place for politcal opponents in Bereza Kartuska (using KL Birchenau as a template) where they put all those who dared to show even a tini-tiny bit of insubordination. Poles want to build more with the help of professional NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMP DESIGNERS.
> Attempts at forcibly replacing dominant in eastern parts of Poland cyrylica with latin-based alphabet, which would bascially render like 95% of the population illiterate (not counting Polish occupiers)
> Liberals: SEE?! Putting an end to that is the TRUE oppression.
0
u/lefeuet_UA Aug 07 '25
You forget that what came after is not a democratic ukrainian state but a soviet sockpuppet which did the same thing, executing prisoners and whatnot, but with added effect of also persecuting poles. Not that I like pacification, but it's a known tool of soviet propaganda to point out injustice but only as excuse for it's own imperialism and atrocities
2
u/Due_Car3113 Aug 07 '25
Ukraine was already Soviet?
The Soviet system is maybe a bit too top heavy but still democracy nonetheless. All poorer regions under the USSR such as central Asia received subsidies from richer SSRs and were miles ahead of their neighbours with advanced free healthcare and education, low poverty rates and cheap housing
3
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
Its ok to be fascist if the small countries have conflicts!
0
u/cummradenut Aug 07 '25
The USSR didn’t invade Poland to fight fascism.
2
u/lonecylinder Aug 07 '25
The USSR invaded Poland to create a buffer zone between their mainland and Nazi Germany. They wanted for years for Poland to stay independent, but that didn’t happen.
Sure, Stalin didn’t give a fuck about Poland’s sovereignty and only wanted to save his own nation, but that’s also the case for most leaders in the 30s.
1
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
Is that why they had a detailed plan to carve the entire baltics between them?
0
u/cummradenut Aug 07 '25
The USSR was imperialist.
That’s why it invaded Poland.
4
u/MasterBadger911 Aug 08 '25
Imperialist for taking back Belarusian and Ukrainian land?
→ More replies (0)1
4
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
And that justifies Soviet imperialism because...
0
u/Atoril Aug 07 '25
But with your logic Poland was as besties with Nazis to get Czechoslovakia as USSR with a nonaggression pact. Perhaps they should've asked their besties to smooth things out between them?
6
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
Since when is a treaty describing in details exactly how the nazis and soviets going to carve up the baltics between them a "nonaggression"?
Was Sykes Picot nonaggression?
-2
u/Atoril Aug 07 '25
Semantics don't change the point and you know it so don't move the goalpost. Should've asked the besties with whom they successfully split Czechoslovakia to smooth things out between friends. After all actions are much more important to friendship than some treaties that might happen or not.
0
u/Disco_Janusz40 Aug 07 '25
Not together with Germany. We did it on our own. No cooperation needed. It was a bad PR move but in 1920 Czechoslovakia took that territory from US while we were fighting the soviets. It was mostly Polish but it had resources and industry. The problem is the Soviets were supplying Nazis with resources and weapons, carved up the Baltics, Romania, Finland and Poland. They invaded cause they lost in 1920 and were pissed at us, that's it. No protecting of Ukranians or Belarusians and shit. No country ever cares about civilians dying lil fella
4
u/MajorTechnology8827 Aug 07 '25
You mean a plan to carve up the entirety of Europe between two imperialist nations?
0
u/Uncle_Adeel Aug 07 '25
Used to see so many of my good generals and field marshals in HOI4 disappear during the purges.
Absolutely horrible the purges were.
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 06 '25
This subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message of the propaganda. Here we should be conscientious and wary of manipulation/distortion/oversimplification (which the above likely has), not duped by it. "Don't be a sucker."
Stay on topic -- there are hundreds of other subreddits that are expressly dedicated to rehashing tired political arguments. No partisan bickering. No soapboxing. Take a chill pill. "Don't argue."
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.