867
u/theElder1926 3d ago
And US kept supplying Japan oil when it was scorching the surface of China.
494
u/Hermes_358 3d ago
Better yet, nazism is based strongly on american nationalism, and America. Hitler loved Henry Ford.
155
u/GrizzlyP33 2d ago
He was impressed by American’s manifest destiny, but he loved Ford because he was an antisemite.
48
u/avanross 2d ago edited 2d ago
America refused to punish the confederate generals, instead choosing to reward them with money and power, then refused to punish the nazi scientists and leaders, instead choosing to reward them with money and power, then refused to punish the architects of the depression and banking crash, the insurrectionists, traitors, pedophiles, or con-artists of the 21st century tech-wealth-hoarding age.
And then, wouldnt ya guess it, they decided to reward all those people with money and power too
It’s almost like there’s some sort of pattern…
104
u/badpersian 3d ago
True and now America loves Hitler. They're returning the love.
→ More replies (1)16
u/avanross 2d ago
They weren’t hiding that they were trying to regress the country to “make america great again”
They literally printed it on hats and signs
They couldnt have been any more clear about their goals
58
u/Murderlol 3d ago
Yeah people seem to forget that a lot of their playbook was based on us. It's laughable that people still think that we've ever been the "good guys". Just because we occasionally take out other countries that are just as evil does not mean we are good.
4
u/Weirdyxxy 2d ago
Meh, I wouldn't claim the New Deal Era USA was quite as bad as Nazi Germany
14
u/hyasbawlz 2d ago
I mean...the Native Americans were still on reservations. White supremacy was still enshrined law. Puerto Rican nationalists were still violently oppressed...
9
u/FirstDukeofAnkh 2d ago
They didn’t have killing camps but plenty of the rhetoric was familiar.
→ More replies (9)2
u/beatles910 2d ago
Out of curiosity, who, in your opinion are the "good guys"?
27
u/pchlster 2d ago
As a country? Fictional.
As a real-life group? I think Doctors Without Borders, Red Cross and similar organisations rank up there.
→ More replies (1)7
→ More replies (4)0
u/get-rekt-lol 2d ago
I don't think there exist "good guys", but for the sake of argument im gonna exclude us allied nations or "western nations" and irrelevant countries and then pick china as the good guys
→ More replies (1)4
7
u/Silly-Elderberry-411 2d ago
If you want to be accurate, he loved Karl may's depiction of America where Winnetou of the apache is eternally grateful to old shatterhand for saving his life between singing platitudes about how german weaponry and engineering is a demonstration of the ubermensch. Yes you read that right, the original version was chock full of protonazi propaganda.
Henry Ford financed the publishing of The International Jew yet you cannot accuse him of not loving America and he cut ties when the nazis made it clear how much they really loathe americans when they declared war.
4
u/Plowbeast 2d ago
Didn't he refuse to take down the Iron Cross he received even after openly disavowing Ford businesses in Germany?
2
→ More replies (2)3
u/embiors 2d ago
Didnt the Nazis also get inspired by American eugenics? I've read that somewhere.
4
u/Oceansoul119 2d ago
Yes. They copied US race laws but toned them down because the US was too racist even for Hitler.
20
u/Atari774 2d ago
To be fair, the US stopped fueling Japan and demanded that they cease fighting in China before they do any more trade. And they made those demands specifically because of what Japan was doing in China. Whereas the USSR kept trading with the Nazis until 1941 when they were invaded by them. Stalin was actively trying to join the Axis, meanwhile FDR was trying to keep Britain in the fight and stop the fighting in Asia.
→ More replies (2)15
u/cpMetis 2d ago
The US added more and more sanctions against trading with Japan as it continues to try to negotiate an end to the invasion of China, finally leading to war when they took the last and biggest action - banning oil export to Japan - over China.
Then continued to try to leverage it in negotiations to make Japan leave China.
And then Japan fucking bombed the US over it.
This is so far from a good point it's almost comical.
46
u/DisastrousBusiness81 3d ago
…you do realize that the U.S. eventually put an oil embargo on Japan specifically because of their war crimes right? And was supplying China with weapons and equipment the entire time? The embargo was such a big deal it directly led to the Pearl Harbor attack.
And that was the last straw in a long LONG series of diplomatic actions the U.S. took to curb Japan’s actions. They’d already cut off trade for basically everything else prior to that point specifically to get them to stop their actions in China, including refusing to sell Japan scrap iron, which hamstrung Japan’s war industry. The U.S. had been directly pressuring Japan to stop for almost the entire length of their war in Asia.
The oil embargo was a last resort measure because both sides knew it would cripple Japan’s entire economy, which would sour all further relations from that point forward…but the U.S. eventually was forced to do that specifically because Japanese actions were so heinous and irresponsible they felt they had no other option.
When the embargo happened, Japanese leaders began to freak out that Tokyo would drown in sewage, because they didn’t have a proper sewer system, they were using trucks to haul sewage out of the city. That’s how big of a deal the embargo was, and why the U.S. held off on using it until it was unequivocally clear there were no other options.
Like, criticize the U.S. for a lot of things that occurred during WW2, but the US response to Japan’s actions was one of the times the U.S. consistently and unironically had the moral high ground.
→ More replies (22)17
u/theElder1926 2d ago
And you realize it is the Red Army that killed the bulk of Nazi’s power and sacked Berlin. This two things are not contradictory to each ither
18
u/Has422 2d ago
And that has nothing to do with the your erroneous claim that the US was ok with enabling Japanese war crimes.
→ More replies (5)13
u/DisastrousBusiness81 2d ago
Yeah, but notably, the Soviets only stopped selling oil to the Nazis after they got stabbed in the back.
The U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor after we made it clear we wouldn’t support their war crimes in China and the rest of the Pacific.
Yeah, the Soviets were useful in taking down the Nazis, I’ll even give them credit for doing the bulk of the work eventually taking the Nazis down.
But that was after years spent as one of the single biggest backers of the Nazi rise to power. For all the credit we give them, that fact shouldn’t be forgotten.
Edit: Also, I just realized that you’re the guy who made the initial comment. How the hell are the USSR’s actions in any way related to your claims about the U.S. aiding and abetting Japanese imperialism?
3
u/Uhhh_what555476384 2d ago
When the US got sufficient leverage over global oil supplies do to the fall of the Netherlands to the Nazis, they turned off the tap and demanded the Japanese give back everything they'd won in the 2nd Sino-Japanese War.
Hence Pearl Harbor.
3
3
u/-thecheesus- 2d ago
....the whole reason Japan bombed Pearl Harbor was because the US cut off that oil due to their actions in China?
9
u/BugRevolution 2d ago
The US was also actively helping and supplying the Chinese.
10
u/shakakaaahn 2d ago
Still traded with the Germans until 1941 as well, even if steep declines occurred from the British blockades of German ports for the 2 prior years. FDR's administration tried to reduce support for the Germans as much as they could get away with while being "neutral", but corporations like GM, IBM, and Ford fought those pressures, if not in writing, at least in continued operations.
Lend-lease act in 1941 was a huge part of the material support allowing the USSR to fight Nazi Germany, not just the occupation resistance in China.
21
u/TheOGFireman 2d ago edited 2d ago
What you're saying is literally the opposite of reality. This a completely invented line of attack, seeing as when Japanese war crimes in china became public knowledge, America started sanctioning and ultimately froze all trade with them. The main condition the US set to resume trade with Japan was their WITHDRAWAL FROM CHINA btw. Japan couldn't continue the war without oil, so this directly led to them attacking european colonies in the south in order to extract the necessary resources and it also led to pearl harbor in order to destroy the US pacific fleet and make it impossible for them to help defend the allied colonies in that theatre
So no, the US stopped any export of oil to Japan explicitly cause of the invasion of China and stipulated they won't reconsider until Japan has withdrawn. But america bad so we invent a reality where the US was giving japan everything they need and yet still got attacked cause... reasons
E: This comment is being hard brigaded at a 60% ratio, yet no one can substantively disagree with it in the replies, while blatant historical revisionism is sitting at the top of this thread basically unquestioned... I hope people open their eyes to how astroturfed almost all of reddit is by these no life tankies. Any post even vaguely criticizing the ussr gets swarmed by these drones repeating the same moronic lines, like in this case, completely invented by whataboutism
→ More replies (22)1
u/libra00 2d ago
Oh, so you're saying there's important historical information that's necessary to help situate American actions in their proper context? I'm noticing a distinct lack of comments by you about the proper historical context of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact..
But Russia bad so we invent a reality where they were the evil empire out to conquer the world and it was only the Nazis turning on them that brought them into the war.
4
u/TheOGFireman 2d ago
The context behind molotov ribbentrop is the ussr being imperialist and wanting to reclaim the tsarist borders. So they split europe with the nazis and attacked/threatened 6 countries and gave vital resources to the nazi war machine for the privilege
Stalin even went as far as purging the foreign affairs ministry of jews when starting negotiations with the nazis, so they'll be more comfortable lol
6
u/WOKinTOK-sleptafter 2d ago
LMAO.
The person who started this chain LIED about US actions. There was no context added where US actions were reconsidered in a different light. There is no controversy regarding any US trade with Japan, seeing as the US was consistently making the correct decision, which is why that dude and now you are lying.
On the other hand the Soviets made a pact with the Nazis not out of necessity or survival, but because they believed it gave them the best chance of expanding their imperialist colonial empire. While the US stopped trade with Japan because of its horrible war crimes in China and mostly avoided trade with Germany due to alliances, the Soviets kept on being best buds with the Nazis until they were stabbed in the back.
Lastly, if you think there’s some huge missing context, provide it.
→ More replies (3)9
u/capp232 2d ago
They traded with Japan before the war and then embargoed Japan after war crimes in Nanking. This isn't the same as providing nazi Germany with vast amounts of war materials for free in an agreement that included invading countries alongside them.
4
u/theElder1926 2d ago
That war in China started on 1931, not 1937
→ More replies (4)3
u/capp232 2d ago
And? Just simply trading with a country you are not at war with isn't the same as supplying a countries with a vast amount of free war material with the express intentions that those materials would be used aganist other rival nations(western democracies). Also dont forget invading nations alongside the nazis. The US traded with the Soviet Union as well and the soviets had already commited multiple genocides (holdomer, kazeh ethnic cleansing) before ww2 even began. So im not sure what your point is.
→ More replies (1)
229
u/KingKeane16 3d ago
Not enough stick is given to England and france for what they did to Czechoslovakia.
67
u/MalleNinja 2d ago
Isn't it considered one of the greatest Allied blunders ever? Even bigger than some wartime blunders? Like it's not as much talked about since it's politics prewar, but when discussing it I'm fairly certain that almost all agree it was a shit show and possibly a big reason Germany got so lucky.
47
u/Atari774 2d ago
100%. Czechoslovakia wanted to fight Germany rather than be occupied, but without Britain and France’s help they knew they’d be screwed. So Chamberlain letting Germany occupy them was a huge betrayal, and it was seen as such even at the time. Especially so just a few months later when the Nazis marched into the rest of the country (beyond the Sudetenland).
Granted, neither the UK or France were really ready for war in 1938, but neither was Germany. Had war been declared then, with the Polish and Czech armies in the fight, Germany likely would have lost as they were outnumbered and surrounded. France even had more tanks than Germany in 1938, so the Germany advantage in mobility wouldn’t exist yet.
3
u/O4fuxsayk 2d ago
France had more tanks than Germany in 1940, it wasn't the equipment that was the issue it was the organisation
→ More replies (1)17
u/KingKeane16 2d ago
It’s hugely glossed over, I’ve seen more posts about Ireland on this sub being critiqued for being neutral or sending a ceremonial condolences. Then England themselves carving up a smaller nation or France carving up a nation they had a treaty with.
→ More replies (1)18
→ More replies (1)2
u/LurkerInSpace 2d ago
Yes it is - in the British public consciousness Chamberlain was a weak, naïve appeaser who let Hitler grow strong, and had to be replaced by the bellicose bulldog Churchill to win the war. It is a major part of the narrative of the war. And this has been the case since the war - Guilty Men was written in 1940.
Stalin obviously did not allow that sort of criticism of his own colossal diplomatic blundering, and wasn't going to resign his post since he didn't like the idea of being shot in the back of the head, so such a narrative did not emerge about eastern appeasement.
251
u/Inuhanyou123 2d ago edited 2d ago
This isn't a good argument. The Nazis went after their own communists and socialists first because they were the biggest threat. The USSR being actually communist or socialist aside (they weren't especially stalinist Russia) this is something that people always don't understand.
Conversely, liberals in the US, the so called moderate who hates nuanced topics about democratic socialism/socialism and communism would absolutely shocked by how radical the revolutionaries of the American civil rights era were. They were not just giving speeches about having dreams or saying racism is bad you know?
I'm talking about the same people who claim piker is a bad guy because he has opinions outside the centrist political spectum regarding countries like Cuba, China and others, yet grudgingly are forced to accept people like mamdani and Abdul, the same people he directly helped get their message out there.
It's just a way of trying to attack the leftward flank because of being uncomfortable with alternative views on seeing the world and conversations challenging the red baiting CIA propaganda.
110
u/Vincent_Felix 2d ago
Lots of anti-left rhetoric on reddit lately.
All grassroots I'm sure.
it's definitely not a scared class of elites wielding armies of bots to sow doubt about socialism.
→ More replies (38)3
→ More replies (14)5
u/lowrads 2d ago
The Soviets rightly regarded the liberals powers as enemies, given their foundational experiences with the white armies.
In WWI, they had been counting on an uprising of the working class in Germany to turn the tide, and that actually came closer to happening than most remember. It wouldn't be until 1932 that the German regime executed a full removal of all the less explicitly corporatist elements in power. Throughout the 1920s, ordinary, racist Germans could often believe themselves to be engaged in the pursuit of "practical" socialism.
87
u/TheExecutiveHamster 2d ago
Ignoring history would be ignoring the role that the US played in propping up the Nazi regime, mainly US industry being buddy buddy with Hitler. Americans also largely had a positive opinion of Hitler prior to the war and Hitler was himself very inspired by America.
Just focusing on the USSR's collaboration with the Nazis, which was done primarily out of necessity to buy time to build up the Soviet War machine, feels like red scare propaganda. History is more nuanced than that.
→ More replies (9)
98
u/ProtozoaPatriot 3d ago
Hitler was authoritarian
The right historically supports authoritarian leaders.
19
u/Xanto97 2d ago
Hitler was authoritarian, but there are authoritarians that have the support of the left. See Stalin & Mao as easy examples.
→ More replies (10)
36
u/Schweckel 2d ago
France and england withheld support from spain because they were ansocial democracy. Leading to the rise of franco. So this is a really bad take
6
u/LaBaguette-FR 2d ago
This is an army of bots promoting fascist takes. 🤖
Get off the internet, guys.
113
u/notguiltyaf 3d ago edited 2d ago
The UK and US invaded the USSR immediately after the revolution and maintained an aggressive stance towards them until cooperation was necessary during the war. The west "appeased" the Nazis in the hope they would move east and destroy the USSR so the west didn't have to. THAT is the context for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
→ More replies (24)
11
u/Dan-GerBrain 2d ago
Ford-Werke produced vehicles for Nazi Germany right up until the US entered the chat in Dec 1941.
37
u/an-com-42 2d ago
The fact that liberalism allows for the proliferation of fascism is not a very hot take. And the response doesn't really address that key point. Obviously USSR is not an ideal by any means.
→ More replies (12)4
u/dnd3edm1 2d ago
imagine a world where people understood geopolitical actors rarely act ideologically and largely strive to benefit themselves at all cost
10
u/Ponch1344 3d ago
Not to mention both of these photos were taken like five plus years apart
→ More replies (2)
104
u/GadreelsSword 3d ago
Neville Chamberlain was a member of the Conservative Party. Only a fascist would call him liberal.
99
u/SidneyHigson 3d ago
They mean liberal in the traditional sense (which conservatives are) not in the Americanised form meaning pro minority rights and more welfare
→ More replies (6)66
→ More replies (29)11
u/Background-Wolf-9380 2d ago
Liberalism is a conservative philosophy. The Democrats are a right of center, conservative, party. Just because conservatism has grown to mean fascist in the USA doesn't change the orientation of these world views on a global spectrum.
4
u/Exxtender 2d ago
Not just the Russians, US banks did business with Nazi Germany until summer of 1941, some even longer, GWB's grandfather being heavily involved with one of those .
21
u/Sufficient-Cress8194 2d ago
Meanwhile, the Soviets like 5 times before WW2:
Listen France and UK, we may not like each other, but I wanna team up with you against the Nazis. Only to be told to fuck off several times while pretty much everyone (including Poland) signed Non-Agression Pacts with the Reich
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Snoo_65717 1d ago
The Soviet Union defeated the Nazis while the west was scrambling to incorporate them.
10
u/rbartlejr 2d ago
Also remember that Britain/France had their shot. The Soviets were looking for an alliance with them and were turned down flat. So they did what they had to. Sounds very familiar these days.
4
u/DickabodCranium 2d ago
Americans love this kind of ideological nonsense that makes them feel like the good guys. The US lost under a half million people fighting in WWII, the Russians lost ~20 million people including around 14 million soldiers, all aimed at defending themselves against a Nazi invasion and ultimately doing the heavy lifting to defeat Nazi Germany. Their preparation to enter the war in the Pacific also did more than the atomic bombs to precipitate Japanese surrender. But the American mythos has it that Russians being anti-Nazi is a myth, right.
42
u/ThatDudeFromPoland 3d ago
Also remember how Soviets and Nazis cooperated during the invasion of Poland, splitting it in half amongst themselves
52
u/whatsupbr0 2d ago
or how Britain and France refused to ally with Russia against Germany prior to that
→ More replies (16)→ More replies (2)11
u/CitySummerSomewhere 2d ago
Don't you people ever get tired of hypocrisy?
Not only did Britain give away the Sudetenland and refuse to let them call in their mutual defense pacts way before this, but Poland itself decided to invade Czechoslovakia at the same time as the Nazis biting off land for themselves.
→ More replies (5)
6
u/viisi 2d ago
Is that... Fred Trump meeting Hitler???
8
u/Significant-Order-92 2d ago
It's Chamberlain. Does look a bit like Fred in that picture (though Fred would have been like 30 to 35 at the time I believe).
24
3d ago
[deleted]
12
u/notguiltyaf 2d ago edited 2d ago
If you're a communist, you should know your theory and history better than this.
The UK and US invaded the USSR immediately after the revolution and maintained an aggressive stance towards them until cooperation was necessary during the war. The west appeased the Nazis in the hope they would move east and destroy the USSR so the west didn't have to. THAT is the context for the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact.
Also, the UK and Germany signed a pact in 1938.
→ More replies (1)2
u/IronyAndWhine 2d ago
Hey comrade,
To add to the other commenter:
While Britain and France were busy rolling out the red carpet for Hitler (handing over foreign territory, ignoring the illegal remilitarization of the Rhineland, gutting the Versailles Treaty with the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, and selling out Czechoslovakia at Munich), the Soviet Union was desperately trying to build an anti-fascist defensive alliance.
But Western governments stalled the 1939 Moscow negotiations, sending low-level delegations without real authority and refusing to treat the Nazi threat with urgency. Whether fueled by sheer incompetence or a quiet, reactionary preference for a fascist crusade against the East rather than a socialist alternative, Britain and France left the door wide open for the catastrophe that ended up happening.
Only after the Western powers torpedoed any hope of a collective security pact did the Soviet Union take diplomatic steps to secure its own borders, signing the non-aggression treaty with Germany as a last resort to buy essential time against the inevitable invasion.
47
u/MetamorphosisAddict 3d ago edited 2d ago
The USSR was on the side of Nazi Germany at the start of WWII. The only reason they ended up on the Allied forces side was that the Nazis broke their pact and attacked the USSR in 1941. Not because they magically grew a moral spine.
EDIT1: the USSR invaded Poland and held a joint victory parade with the Nazis in Sept 1939. This is basic historical education.
EDIT2: the amount of bot activity and revisionist nonsense in the comments is wild. 2 minutes spent with Wikipedia is all you need to fact check me.
EDIT3: for those who need it: links
57
u/Paul_Gambino 3d ago
The British and French both signed similar "pacts" called the Anglo-German Declaration and the Franco-German Non-Aggression Pact as well as the Munich Agreement where they signed away Czechloslovakia in a manner similar to what the USSR did with Poland.
Would you say Great Britain or France were allied to Nazi Germany in the same way you're claiming the USSR was?
→ More replies (16)17
u/good_from_afar 3d ago
Im no history expert but I'm pretty sure the other pacts didnt involve jointly invading a country and dividing it up between them.
30
u/Paul_Gambino 3d ago
The Munich agreement included giving the Sudetenland to Germany and by extension all of Czechloslovakia since the country became an indefensible rump state in the aftermath.
5
u/Roadrunner571 2d ago
And what part of Czechoslovakia went to the UK, France, or Italy? Were any troops of these countries invading Czechoslovakia to claim the territory for themselves?
Most of the pacts of the soon-to-be Western allies were just a form of appeasement. Which in hindsight didn't work.
3
u/astrixzero 2d ago
Polish troops marched right into the region called Trans-Olza following the Munich Agreement
→ More replies (2)13
u/Paul_Gambino 2d ago
If the British or French give a country wholesale to the Nazis then it's appeasement and a misguided policy.
If the Soviets reoccupy lands which were taken during the civil war and which were mostly populated by Ukrainians then it's allying with the Nazis. Who do you think would be occupying that land if the Soviets didn't take it? This is such an obvious double standard.
→ More replies (22)9
u/frubano21 3d ago edited 3d ago
Russia has spent a lot of money and time attempting to alter that version of history. They focus on "victory day" and how some western leaders had publicly stated "the USSR changing sides" was a major turning point in the war.
They leave out the part where they were actively an Axis Power alongside Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. They leave out the part that they only changed sides because Hitler backstabbed them by invading what is now Ukraine and Belarus and Russia in an attempt to take Moscow. They leave out the part where many of those western leaders also stated "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," implying the at the relationship between Allied powers and the USSR was one born out of necessity rather than kinship.
Russia's entire existence has thrived on disinformation, denial of facts, and propoganda rhetoric dating back 80+ years.
Edit: oof, the Russian bots didn't like my comment cause I'm at 61% upvotes for something that is factually true.
3
u/beatles910 2d ago
They leave out the part where they were actively an Axis Power alongside Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.
The Soviet Union was never an Axis Power
The USSR and Nazi Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August 1939, which was a non-aggression agreement and included secret protocols to divide parts of Eastern Europe. However, this pact did not make the Soviet Union a member of the Axis military alliance.
5
u/crinalex 2d ago
Nazi Germany did actively prevent aid and arms reinforcement from reaching Finland in the Winter War to help the Soviet Union and also made threats against allied and scandinavian countries if they considered intervening on behalf of Finland.
→ More replies (2)3
u/IronyAndWhine 2d ago
Then why did the USSR spent YEARS trying to build an anti-Nazi military alliance with Britain and France?
When those Western governments appeased Hitler at every turn, dragged their feet during the Moscow negotiations, and refused to take the threat seriously.... the USSR was left completely isolated to face the Nazi war machine alone, and had no choice but to buy time with a pact to secure their borders and prepare for the inevitable invasion by Germany. Which turned out to be the correct presumption.
The USSR was not "actively an Axis Power alongside Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy"... they were literally trying to form defensive military alliances against them.
→ More replies (2)2
u/CitySummerSomewhere 2d ago
The USSR was willing to fight Nazi Germany with the West far before WWII.
It was only when it was clear that Britain was dicking them around that they formed their own non-agression pact years after other countries chose to do so.
The idea that the USSR was on the side of Nazi Germany is a-historical illiterate nonsense and an attempt to revise and downplay the realities of who actually contributed the most to Germany's defeat. (It was the USSR who did the bulk of all fighting, killing, and dying.) After WWII this was unambiguously recongnized and widely known, but we have almost a century of propaganda attempting to erase this obvious fact.
→ More replies (13)
13
u/Proud-Pilot9300 3d ago edited 3d ago
Not to mention they were treaty allies and divided Eastern Europe into their spheres of influence.
Edit: typo :(
17
u/xxDeadEyeDukxx 3d ago
Yep the Molotov Ribbentrop non aggression pact ensured that Russias western flank and Germanys eastern flank were secure so they could divide up the bits in between and Germany could invade Poland without worrying about Russia responding. Obviously that was only temporary until 1941 but it gave Russia two years to prepare
12
7
u/Significant-Order-92 2d ago
Allied is a bit of a stretch. More specifically agreed what they could take without the other going to war with eachouther. They also effectively were in proxy wars with eachother (Nazis via supporting Finland and the Soviets supporting multiple Soviet allied Communist groups in territories the Nazis were grabbing).
They definitely weren't enemies until Germany itself invaded Russia. Even if both seemed to have planned to stab eachother in the back.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Uhhh_what555476384 2d ago
Allied is absolutely that right term for the mutual invasion of Poland.
→ More replies (7)
2
2
u/Either-Coach4217 2d ago edited 2d ago
Only the UK, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa & Canada ever declared war on Nazi Germany without being attacked or having war declared on them. The USSR were uneasily allied with Germany, supplying them, The US was happy to trade with both sides initially, although the Roosevelt administration was largely more supportive of the allies. Poland and Greece are slightly different one was attacked without a formal declaration of war, and Greece were fighting Italy when the Germans came to Italy's aid However only the countries listed went to war with Nazi germany on the principle they were evil
2
u/Generic_Username26 2d ago
Hey funny story so the Nazis and Soviets both kinda met up and agreed to invade Poland together
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Tetha_au 2d ago
If we're going to look at who supported Hitlers Reich...lets be inclusive and honest about it.
2
u/Clanceeinfinity 2d ago
CIA Propaganda post. They literally dont know history. But CIA slop works, in surveys worldwide, where they asked people who belive ended the third reich, just after the war everyone correctly said the USSR. But the americans didnt like that, thanks to many many movies about nazis and other media where the USA are the only "good guys", the narative got flipped, now everyone thinks america ended the nazis
2
u/Dawningrider 2d ago
This is more real politics.
The communists in German said "after a Hitler, our turn". The ones in Spain fought along side Liberals, socialists, anarchists, catholics, in an alliance.
The ones in Russia helped them carve up Poland before the table was flipped.
The liberals in the US fought the Facists. Then hired them, then sponsored Facists coups against fellow democracies in South America and the middle east.
The History we are ignoring? Politicians will bend principle when they stand to gain, unless we keep their feet to the fire.
9
u/Axel_Grahm 2d ago
And the USA helped smuggle Nazis out of Germany when the war was ending so that they could form American research and military to help eliminate any rising leftist movement, since the USA and Germany were/are both fundamentally right leaning. Don’t ignore the last part of that history too.
America was always worse at killing Nazis than the USSR, because America wanted Nazis working for them.
→ More replies (15)6
u/Significant-Order-92 2d ago
The Soviets and I believe British did as well.
It was a fairly common thing.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/Farebiaashiq 3d ago
Here we go with revisionsim, Nazis were defeated by USSR and that's a fact.
Infact British with their imperialism in Asia and French with their imperialism in Africa weren't much better than Nazis either it's just they didn't kill white people so it doesn't matter.
Neither were Americans with their slavery, forced capture of territory like hawaii and Japanese American internment camps, also the fact is america in its utilitarian way let a lot of Nazis into their govt programs and many Former Nazis even led agencies like NASA.
11
u/Paul_Gambino 3d ago
Exactly. These types never say Great Britain and France were allied to Nazi Germany when they signed their own non aggression pacts or when they gave away Czechloslovakia in the Munich agreement
6
u/Daztur 3d ago
Other countries also doing bad things doesn't make Stalin helping Hitler until Hitler backstabbed him any better.
9
u/Can_Com 3d ago
Stalin begged anyone to join his opposition to the Nazis, when no one did, he made a deal to strengthen his chance of defeating them later. Not his fault the UK and France were Nazi collaborators.
→ More replies (7)2
u/xToasted1 2d ago
Tankies love their revisionism don't they? No, Stalin joined the deal in hopes that the acquisition of his half of the Poland would strengthen the Soviets, and once Germany went to war with the West they would be intimidated by Soviet strength and no longer have the resolve to fight USSR. It was never about biding time for a fight.
Also, since when did invading Poland become necessary to "buy time"? Why couldn't the Soviets have just done a regular non aggression pact?
Cue some tankie bringing up the partition ot Czechoslovakia in 3... 2....
→ More replies (5)4
u/inevitablelizard 2d ago
The USSR received huge amounts of aid from Britain and America, with Britain sending stuff on dangerous Arctic convoys and invading Iran alongside the Soviets to help secure a supply line for lend lease aid. Aid which the Soviets would have lost the war without. And us holding out against the Nazis was crucial for how the rest of the war played out.
5
u/high_throughput 3d ago
Nazis were defeated by USSR and that's a fact.
Yes.
And also it's a fact that the USSR supplied Nazi Germany with fuel and war materials while they were fighting Britain, France, and Poland in Dunkirk.
The nazis and soviets were not at war until 1941, when the nazis double crossed them and violated the non-aggression treaty.
5
u/Gougeded 3d ago edited 3d ago
And Stalin was also an imperialist and one of the most murderous leaders that ever existed with Mao and Hitler. He defeated the Nazis (with the other allies) because the Nazis attacked them first but they had a non aggression pact at the beginning of the war. They also left a trail of destruction in their wake "liberating" eastern europe.
→ More replies (3)4
u/sofixa11 3d ago edited 2d ago
Nazis were defeated by USSR and that's a fact.
No, that's your opinion. The Nazis were defeated by a broad coalition which included everyone from the USSR to UK, India, US, Poland, etc. Everyone contributed different things to different extents. The Soviets themselves said they might have not even survived without Western Allied support.
The USSR provided the most troops, yes. But a lot of the materiel they used for those troops came from the US and UK. Without Ultra decrypts - which were a thing because the Polish cracked early enigmas, and their + French efforts allowed the British to crack the later models - the war would have taken years longer. Multiple Soviet operations only happened thanks to Ultra decrypts.
Infact British with their imperialism in Asia and French with their imperialism in Africa weren't much better than Nazis either it's just they didn't kill white people so it doesn't matter.
Only a complete and utter moron would use skin colour for the comparison here. The British killed tons of Boers in concentration camps, and they were white as fuck, and nobody cared. The thing which made the Nazis uniquely terrible was their insatiable aggression, combined with their industrial genocide. Had they just annihilated all German Jews, nobody would have done anything. It's the fact that they went to conquer all of Europe, and annihilate whole groups of people in the process, is what got everyone to fight them.
→ More replies (6)
3
u/insightmiss 2d ago
In the WW2 no one fought against fascism, each country had entered that fight only when their direct interest and sovereignity were threatened. Till than most tried to appease and even cooperate. For most countries it was a war to regain or to protect independence. Also, if we are being honest what hitler was doing wasn't that different from what stalin was doing in soviet union, or from colonial crimes of some European countries at that time. So, no one would start a fight to get rid of fashism. These days not much changed. Usually countries step in if they feel threatened, not because some government acts against UN rules and commits crimes against humanity. NATO kinda intervened in Serbia, to stop the genocide. But that's an exception and because an offender is not a nuclear state.
5
u/ArtisticConnection19 3d ago
September 17 1939 USSR attacked Poland just couple weeks after Nazi did on September 1st. They were cooperating
3
5
2
u/simple123mind 2d ago
Don't forget Heinz Guderian spent a lot of time perfecting his tactics during the interwar period in southern Russia to avoid any scrutiny from France and Britain
2
u/coolbaby1978 2d ago
Neither the USSR nor any other country in history has ever been communist despite the labels.
What they were was authoritarian with a totalitarian system.
Otherwise the Democratic Republic of Korea must be a democracy right?
4
2
u/alvinofdiaspar 3d ago
Meet Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact!
→ More replies (1)3
u/Nickhoova 3d ago
You realize that France and Britain also signed non aggression pacts with Germany before the molotov-ribbon act too right? Some being the Munich agreement, the anglo-german declaration (the infamous "peace for our time" Chamberlain quote came after signing that one.), and the Franco-German declaration. All of those acts were signed before the Molotov-Ribbon Pact. If people want to criticize the Molotov-Ribbon pact that's fine but don't pretend like the other powers thay were supposed to hold and put Germeny in check did anything to stop them and thay the USSR were the only ones to work something out that was intended as a last ditch effort to build time for the USSR to buy military preparation time.
5
u/alvinofdiaspar 2d ago
The other powers didn’t went in and divided up Czechoslovakia among themselves like the Soviets did with the Nazis with Poland - and they most certainly didn’t commit mass murder of the intelligentsia, unlike the Nazis and the Soviets.
1
u/AlJeanKimDialo 2d ago
US companies asked for reparations from allies bombing their factories in nazi germany, usa got involved only when they realised war was over and cccp was about to eat the whole continent, they never gave a fuck
1
u/RetardedGaming 2d ago
Ah yes the USSR and nazi Germany were such good friends that the former was responsible for 70+% of all german soldiers killed in the war.
It's also super rich to say that when Western powers had a deliberate policy of supplying both sides in the hopes that they would eliminate each other
→ More replies (1)
1
u/KoneCat 2d ago
The Russians, under Stalin, did sign a treaty with the Germans as to not get invaded by them, and that ended as well as you might expect. So yeah, the poster of the original image is definitely cherry-picking, and so far as I recall, the photo of Neville Chamberlain was taken before the Germans even started invading other countries, right? Seems understandable that, in that moment, he was trying to stop a second world war, which ended exactly as it did.
You can't placate people like Hitler, or Stalin for that matter who was also an absolute tyrant, but that's something a lot of people like to ignore when they try to idealize the absolute horrors both men imposed on others. It grinds my gears every time someone tries to act like the Russians were the good guys, or even did all the work, when in reality they were operating their troops like a sodding meat grinder, not to mention the detestable things they did when they 'captured' civilians.
People really need to stop thinking that only one type of bad thing was bad in that war, when in reality, there were multiple levels to the depravity.
1
1
u/globerider 2d ago
No matter how you look at it this is by historical accounts a dogshit post.
The Nazis and the USSR were still allies during Dunkirk and up until Hitler launched Barbarossa, the USSR invasion a year later.
Captioning this with we keep ignoring history is either 100% cluelessness or bait.
1
1
u/JRE_Electronics 2d ago
Looks to me like they are saying we should be more radical in dealing with the fascists who have taken over the US government.
1
1
u/DefectiveCoyote 2d ago
The Soviet Union tried on mutiple occasions to make anti-fascist defense pacts with the west but the west kept stalling out of anti-communist fears despite it being entirely obvious that Hitler was a mad man with an expansionist agenda and was persecuting is own people.
The west signed the Munich pact in 1938 a whole year before the Molotov pact and did not invite moscow.
So yea Moscow did not necessarily trust the west so they did what anybody in their position would do. They did everything within their power to protect themselves and buy themselves as much time and space for a war that was sure to be inevitable. The Soviets were simply pragmatic in their strategy. But the League of Nations openly allowed to fascism to rise until it was too late.
1
u/TheHykos 2d ago
In what universe is Neville Chamberlain, leader of the Conservative Party, a liberal?
1
u/KirkWahmmett 2d ago
Gee, it MUST be because Hitler hadn't ordered Operation Barbarossa and betrayed Stalin yet...
1
u/Uhhh_what555476384 2d ago
While Poland was being invaded by the Nazis from the West it was simultaneously invaded by the USSR from the East.
Collaboration is worse then appeasement.
1
u/CvetomirG 2d ago
And while The USSR was practically begging to make an anti-Nazi alliance before WW2, the allies were feeding Austria and Czechoslovakia to Germany, after letting them remilitarize the Rhineland as well.
This idea that the west are saints and the Soviets are evil is pathetic, both dropped the ball massively with the Nazis. You falling for this wannabe intellectual slop and posting it as some own is just sad
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Lower_Razzmatazz5470 2d ago
The left is Adolf and Neville Chamberlain in 1938 is it not? The right is 1945 as Berlin is getting skullfucked during which the soviets plant a flag
A dumb twitter freak post completely ignoring the context because of how they see shit
1
u/Hughley_N_Dowd 2d ago
And it goes beyond that. The Versailles treaty capped what Germany could have in terms of planes, ships, manpower etc. So they moved training and R&D to the USSR. Kama, Lipetsk and Toma comes to mind.
And let's not forget that a German subsidiary of Ford built trucks to the bitter end. Ford-Werke was **wholly owned* by Ford in Detroit throughout the war.
1
u/KurtMcGurt_ 2d ago
Also Germany and Russia attacked Poland at the same time yet the French and British declared war on only Germany.
1
u/Independent-Bug-9352 2d ago
It's like these people forget Stalin and Hitler were allies, but an alliance among snakes never lasts, so when Hitler betrayed Stalin things went south.
Yet here in these very comments one has tankies who would've bene right at home under Stalin saying, "The authoritarianism is worth it, trust me, because where we're going will be great!"
1
1
u/lgodsey 2d ago
Pretending that deeply conservative Chamberlain was "liberal" in the modern sense is preposterous. Further, pretending that the right-wing authoritarian Russia was led by "communist" ideals is just as laughable. No country was ever led by the proletariat seizing the means of production. They were communist (USSR, China) or socialist (Nazis) or democratic (N Korea) in name only. The only through thread is that they were all right-wing totalitarian nightmare states.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/ChristHollo 2d ago
Well they also approached each of the Western powers to do a preemptive attack on the Nazis because they openly talked about Lebensraum, the plan to genocide and settle Eastern Europe making it “living room” for Germans.
Selling them oil was done so they can arm themselves for the inevitable would come. Same thing for the secret protocols of invading Poland. It was the terms and conditions of an inevitable war.
What we don’t bring up, for some fucking reason, are things like Operation Unthinkable, in which the allies (specifically Winston Churchill) were willing to completely reconstruct the Nazi Army to continue fighting the Soviets. In fact, this was part of the reason the Western powers all signed non-aggression pacts BEFORE THE SOVIETS, because they were willing to allow the first socialist governed country to be destroyed, but it backfired because Germany broke their end of the bargain.
Without selling this oil, we very well could live in a world where the Nazis won. It’s not pretty, it’s not some valiant scheme, it was a disgusting action that needed to be taken. It shows in how many lives, how many people in the Soviet Union died and sacrificed their lives to protect themselves and their motherland. If you don’t believe me, look into the OUN, those Romanians (under Antonescu), Baltic, or Polish, or any other nationalist militant groups who collaborated with the Nazis whom the people could alternatively have fought alongside because of their own desires for nationalism.
These alternatives and their failure to ascend showed that the people by majority saw the folly of nationalism that we are so blind to. They had the chance to split what would become the Soviet bloc by fighting alongside fascism and taking that chance but they were a minority. Finally, we could also discuss project paperclip or the fact that NATO had a high ranking Nazi literally become the military committee’s fucking chairman (Adolf Heusinger if you are curious). Liberals are the historical revisionists, it’s unbelievable how malevolently ignorant they are when contextualizing the Soviets efforts against Nazi Germany.
I will assume however they will dredge up countless other points in our narratives of the USSR, but yadda yadda Stephen Whetacroft yadda yadda “Black Book of Communism” rejected by its own authors, so on and so forth
1
u/Felixlova 2d ago
While the Brits and French abandoned the Czechs the Poles were stopping Soviet troops from reinforcing the Czechs.
They brought Dunkirk upon themselves by feeding the crocodile, hoping it exhausted itself while feasting on the East before it turned West. They couldn't fathom the Soviets being equally as keen on self preservation as themselves and choosing to sign a non-aggression pact when their other options were exhausted. The Soviets were keen on an anti-Germany defence pact but the Allies said no so they did what they had to do to survive.
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Munificent-Enjoyer 2d ago
and while the USSR was offering to station troops in Czechoslovakia UK, France and Poland were helping Hitler carve it up
1
u/showmeyourchits 2d ago
I should point out that the picture on the right was altered by the Soviets for propaganda purposes.
1
u/Character_Bed1212 2d ago
The president during World War II was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was a democrat Trump to present day. Our president is a fascist
1
u/Spiritual_Note6560 2d ago
From the original tweet, and the reply, and this murderbywords post, they are all incredibly and equally stupid.
1
1
u/EddyS120876 2d ago
Wait didn’t said communist also help the nazi ? Oh yes they did by signing the German-soviet pact where both invaded Poland in September 1939 and they split the nation in half . Plus share intell and resources. Oooops tankies
1
1
u/Potassium_Doom 2d ago
Because the Soviet rape of Germany wasn't a war crime since only the baddies do those
1
1
1
1
1
u/Motoreducteur 2d ago
Does he mean after operation Barbarossa in 1941, during which Nazi Germany attacked its allied country USSR and wrecked their diplomatic relationship?
In 1942, USSR entered a pact with the British government to enter war against Germany, in which it was agreed that all territory taken by the USSR would be kept at the end of WW2
It also prompted the disembarkment of Dunkirk, as the US didn't want to let its next main opposing country (USSR) get so many territories. It was a race to Berlin between the US and their allies, and the USSR.
Also Poland is nowhere near Dunkirk and it is actually on the opposite end of Germany.
The whole murder I'd actually fucking suicide my bros. The guy knows nothing of WW2
1
1
u/sidewalksoupcan 2d ago
People like this guy love to forget the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. The USSR and Nazi Germany never really liked one another but they were absolutely willing to cooperate if it brought them mutual benefit. Germany's interwar tank program owed a lot to Soviet cooperation for instance
1
u/Quietschedalek 2d ago
Not only that. It wasn't just the Nazis that attacked and occupied Poland. The Soviets at that time were in cahoots with the Nazis and attacked and occupied the eastern parts of Poland. That's what the Molotov-Ribbentrop-Pact was all about.
1.3k
u/SkylarAV 3d ago
Tbf, facisism plays factions against themselves. Fascist unity is its strength so they love to divide opponents. Thats why Hitler called his party Socialists and then purged socialists from the party.