215
catharsis
(lemmy.ml)
Excuse me while I heat up the popcorn before diving into the comment section
all 44 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
The only chance he had, while still taking Poland, was to not meaningfully attack France, Netherlands, or Britain. Make it clear he was willing to settle with them. None of those countries were thrilled to be in a war, that would have been the end of it with a new map of Europe.
The West didn't care about the Holocaust and felt more threatened by Russia. The war in the Pacific would have still happened of course. And there's a fair chance the West would have teamed up with Hitler to fight Russia.
Anything beyond Poland was just a bridge too far.
Izzard nailed it.
And Hitler ended up in a ditch, covered in petrol, on fire, so, that's fun! I think that's funny, ‘cause he was a mass-murdering fuckhead. And that was his honeymoon as well!
So, unrelated, but does anyone know what movie that frame is from? Because I swear I remember starting it but I didn't get to finish it and I don't remember what it was but I kinda liked it. It was about something from space hitting earth I think?
The only way Hitler would have won is if America stayed out
80% of nazis died on the eastern front. The US helped sure but it could have been won without them
Nikita Khrushchev, in his own memoir, stating clearly that the USSR could not have won the war on its own:
I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don't think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.
-Khrushchev, Nikita Sergeevich; Khrushchev, Serge (2004). Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev: Commissar, 1918–1945. Penn State Press. pp. 638–639.
Interesting, I did not know about this. I'm hesitant to believe it bc its Kruschev but I will look into it further
I really have no basis for evaluating the matter at hand one way or the other, but I would like to point out that Khrushchev is not a great source, especially when he's saying "Here's something Stalin said all the time in private that he never said publicly".
Don't get me wrong, you may very well be right, but I find it less convincing when paired with this evidence than if the claim is simply made with no evidence at all.
You're not wrong but a lot of those eastern front deaths came from the final days of the war as the allies marched on Germany's own land and as well as many battles fought by the Allies across both fronts. The US was instrumental to the pacific front. You'd also have a hard time convincing me France could have been liberated without the US's D Day Operations.
They fought with American weapons and American funding
Which was a very easy way for americans to fight the nazis at the expense of soviet lives. Not that their contribution wasn't valuable of course. It's just worth noting the full intentions of the united states.
Soviets used Soviet lives to win. The same tactic they used against Napoleon. Retreat and destroy all essential supplies. The Soviet winter killed many of thier own too.
The soviets were invaded by the nazis. The nazis were in the USSR killing them on their land. Would you expect them not to die? To not fight using whatever means they could to protect their families from actual nazis who they know have slaughtered millions? Who else's lives would they use?
Doubling back on the lives shed by the U.S. statement then?
I'm not sure how this is in contradiction
Either the U.S. has some undisclosed tie to Soviet lives lost, or you are I guess using the presumption that the U.S. is at fault for WW2 entirely.
It took me a second to get what your saying, it's kind of an obtuse argument, but no, that's not the logical implication of what our friend said. The logical implication is that the Lend Lease program was a way for the US to tip the scales with minimal cost to American lives, essentially having the Soviets fight a proxy war (insofar as Lend Lease was the basis for their being able to fight, something which I need to assume gets exaggerated by anticommunists for obvious reasons). The US could have instead spent the same resources on its own military to further enable it to fight on the western front rather than put it in Soviet hands.
I don't think it's really that interesting or useful an argument to make, but it does make sense.
Yeah that explanation goes way more roundabout than my initial assertion.
There needs to be a new term coined "commie-splaining" that is give to those that just need to scratch that itch y'all get from propaganda.
Step 1: don't invade poland.
Step 2: stop being Nazis
There, that's how Hitler could have won.
Being Nazis wasn't a deal breaker for America. Nazis were filling out the Madison square garden at the time.
We still have monuments donated by Fascist Italy standing in Chicago.
Fucking hell, didn't know about that. Someone should drag that fucking piece of shit into Lake Michigan.
At least there's the Haymarket Memorial out in Forest Park.
Most of the "what if" scenarios that I've come across focus on what if the Nazis hadn't attacked the USSR when they did. If Germany was fighting on one front at a time, the question becomes does Germany take the UK, and if so, does the US directly enter the war at all?
They didn't have that many nukes at the time. Plus people would be upset if they nuked a white people country
The manhattan project originally start as a way to defeat Germany, it just wasn’t ready in time.
The plan was the bomb Germany with it first, Japan only got the bombs because we weren't going to not use them once we had them.
Firebombing multiple German cities was fine?
You need to educate away your ignorance.
Yeah because people still talk about the firebombing of Tokyo outside of "well actually" comments
Yerr bu durr-be derp pbbbbt
I was not talking about Tokyo, I was talking about German cities that were firebombed.
Yeah no shit you didn't bring up Tokyo; I did. What an amazing observation!
You're pretty slow witted for someone who was just acting hyper aggressive insulting people's intelligence.
You're embarassing yourself. Pull up your pants and go.
lemmy dot world
lemmy dot mong lenin
Saying someone is ignorant is not calling them stupid.
Someone who does not understand that difference, while having access to a dictionary on the other hand...
thank god the most pedantic idiot alive showed up
Time was a real factor, Germany was on the verge of nuclear technology too. Many lives were spared because Hitler over extended himself. By the time the Allies were at Berlin they were on a campaign of submission.
this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
215 points (96.9% liked)
Memes
45553 readers
709 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS