My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could’ve been stopped way earlier.
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don’t know when Nazis would’ve invaded USSR. They still had Western Allies to deal with. The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West. So same deal as what the West wanted to do.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
They still had Western Allies to deal with.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I’m not sure what your point was.
The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it’s pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals. West made deals that damn them, but stopped at Poland. Soviet Union was put in a shitty position but also they agreed to carve up Poland alongside Nazi Germany. I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals.
Because what you think they “should” have done is completely fucking irrelevant to the objective stone fact that the western allies did make those deals. That was the material reality the USSR had to content with, not your fantasy world that you keep bringing up despite the fact that no-one asked, presumably just to waste time. Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
So basically your argument is that 100 million lives aren’t valuable enough to be pragmatic about
I mean they did make those deals, Soviet Union made the deals, I think it was all shit.
How many times do I have to tell you that nobody asked, and nobody cares, before you stop repeating this? Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
Pragmatism from all sides when dealing with Nazis is what caused the situation to get that far tbqh
Hitler literally wrote a book on how much he hated communists, the bolsheviks and wanted to kill them before he even became chancellor. They were rallying against “judeo-bolshevism” from the very start. It was always very clear that the Nazis saw the main enemy in the east.
I mean clearly not. They could’ve continued on from Poland, but went to West first and then to South. Without Molotov-Ribbentrop, not sure if that would’ve been different other than Hitler being (even) less confident about the non-aggression between them. But it’s what ifs.
The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.
The western allies were doing tons of trade with the Nazis and sabotaged talks of alliance with the Soviets up until the war, hoping each would kill the other. This isn’t controversial.
I would’ve rather like to have seen Soviet Union doing their all to prevent the attack on Poland by Germany instead of joining the attacker in carving up Poland (and Eastern Europe) and doing their own massacres
They did. The Eastern Pact was killed by the British, French, and Polish. Poland hated Russia, and had just been at war with the USSR 2 decades ago, where they took areas in Ukraine and Lithuania. When the Soviet Union entered Poland after the Polish state fell to the Nazis, they met resistance and obviously met that resistance with force, but the way the Soviets treated the Polish and the way the Nazis treated the Polish were entirely uncomparable, the Nazis were slaughtering men, women, and children in unmarked mass graves. Goebbels even tried to blame one such massacre on the Red Army, Katyn, despite the spent ammunition clearly being marked as produced by Nazi Germany in 1941.
So your complaint is that the USSR didn’t take even more of the brunt of the Nazis forces.
My complaint is making a deals and pacts with Nazis. Again, that includes everyone, not just USSR. If everyone had put up stronger opposition from the start then all could’ve been stopped way earlier.
The USSR tried extremely hard to form a unified opposition to the Nazis, and the Western powers responded by signing pacts with the Nazis. As a result, the USSR was left with the choice to also sign a pact to buy time and keep the Nazis out of some of Eastern Europe for a time, or to let them have Eastern Europe and then have to fight a war from a worse position with less preparation.
They literally did choose the option that allowed them to put up the strongest opposition possible. If they had done what you wanted, the Nazis would have won the Eastern front.
We don’t know when Nazis would’ve invaded USSR. They still had Western Allies to deal with. The pact gave breathing room to USSR but it also pointed them towards West. So same deal as what the West wanted to do.
But they would have invaded, probably sooner, so just letting them have all of Eastern Europe in advance would have resulted in the Nazis winning the Eastern front.
Which was true when they invaded them historically too, so I’m not sure what your point was.
The USSR already did the overwhelming amount of the work in defeating the Nazis, it’s pretty file to say they should have let themselves get annihilated so the West could do even less.
I’m not sure why people think it’s either or when I’ve been very clearly saying that neither should’ve been making the deals. West made deals that damn them, but stopped at Poland. Soviet Union was put in a shitty position but also they agreed to carve up Poland alongside Nazi Germany. I’d say that’s all around pretty objectionable.
Because what you think they “should” have done is completely fucking irrelevant to the objective stone fact that the western allies did make those deals. That was the material reality the USSR had to content with, not your fantasy world that you keep bringing up despite the fact that no-one asked, presumably just to waste time. Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
So basically your argument is that 100 million lives aren’t valuable enough to be pragmatic about
I mean they did make those deals, Soviet Union made the deals, I think it was all shit.
Pragmatism from all sides when dealing with Nazis is what caused the situation to get that far tbqh
How many times do I have to tell you that nobody asked, and nobody cares, before you stop repeating this? Shut the fuck up about what you think the western allies “should” have done: we are talking about the actual world.
Nonsense
Hitler literally wrote a book on how much he hated communists, the bolsheviks and wanted to kill them before he even became chancellor. They were rallying against “judeo-bolshevism” from the very start. It was always very clear that the Nazis saw the main enemy in the east.
I’m not sure what you feel this is in reply to. Their mutual hatred was well known
I was trying to say that it was evidently “as soon as possible”.
I mean clearly not. They could’ve continued on from Poland, but went to West first and then to South. Without Molotov-Ribbentrop, not sure if that would’ve been different other than Hitler being (even) less confident about the non-aggression between them. But it’s what ifs.
The only one trying to do that legitimately was the USSR, Britain and France sabotaged talks of anti-Nazi alliance every single time. The west wanted the Nazis and Soviets to kill each other, and then finish off the weaker one if possible.
Western Allies were fighting way before USSR. So was Poland.
The western allies were doing tons of trade with the Nazis and sabotaged talks of alliance with the Soviets up until the war, hoping each would kill the other. This isn’t controversial.
It isn’t, neither is that they were the first ones (after Poland) to actually fight the Nazis. So can’t knock them on that account
Sure, so again, it seems like you would’ve had the Soviet Union let all of Poland be subject to the Holocaust instead of half of it.
I would’ve rather like to have seen Soviet Union doing their all to prevent the attack on Poland by Germany instead of joining the attacker in carving up Poland (and Eastern Europe) and doing their own massacres
They did. The Eastern Pact was killed by the British, French, and Polish. Poland hated Russia, and had just been at war with the USSR 2 decades ago, where they took areas in Ukraine and Lithuania. When the Soviet Union entered Poland after the Polish state fell to the Nazis, they met resistance and obviously met that resistance with force, but the way the Soviets treated the Polish and the way the Nazis treated the Polish were entirely uncomparable, the Nazis were slaughtering men, women, and children in unmarked mass graves. Goebbels even tried to blame one such massacre on the Red Army, Katyn, despite the spent ammunition clearly being marked as produced by Nazi Germany in 1941.