Do you think the Soviet Union gets way too much credit for Nazi Germany's downfall?

[Omgodzilla]

Sure, they fought the most Germans but they also received a crap ton of aid from the US and UK. Without all that money and equipment, the Soviets would've been royally screwed. But seriously, the Soviets started the war alongside Germany with their invasion of Poland. They were just as bad, if not worse than Germany. Then after the war, they're painted as heroes, despite raping over 2 million German women. Its sickening. We should've invaded and taken these bastards out right after the war.

[Calfredd]

Can you point to me where the Soviet Union was hailed as a hero? Also what might did we have left after the war ended that we could have viably used to take out the Soviet Union? I'd like a link to that as well.

[Belize]

What the fuck is up with all the Soviet Union threads...

Anyways OT: Had Germany not opened a war front with Russia, WW2 would have looked a lot different. Near the end of the war, the U.S. and Britain let the Ruskies go in as deep as they wanted, since they wanted to let them take all the casualties.

As far as invading Russia, clearly there are some people that will never learn. Napoleon tried, Hitler tried. What fucking makes you think the war-battered Allies would have been able to?

[Omgodzilla]

Dude, the US single-handedly won WWII. Read any history book ever. Duh.

I just said the Soviets fought more Nazis than anyone but that the American aid played a big role in their success.

- - - Updated - - -

What the fuck is up with all the Soviet Union threads...

Anyways OT: Had Germany not opened a war front with Russia, WW2 would have looked a lot different. Near the end of the war, the U.S. and Britain let the Ruskies go in as deep as they wanted, since they wanted to let them take all the casualties.

As far as invading Russia, clearly there are some people that will never learn. Napoleon tried, Hitler tried. What fucking makes you think the war-battered Allies would have been able to?

We had something that Hitler and Napoleon didn't. Atomic fucking Bombs. But even on top of that, we had the best naval and airforce in the world along with a stronger economy and superior technology.

[Belize]

We had something that Hitler and Napoleon didn't. Atomic fucking Bombs.

We had 2. And used both of them.

[Deleted]

It's time for another alternate history lesson by Prof. Omgodzilla!

[Omgodzilla]

We had 2. And used both of them.

We could've produced more before the Soviets had a chance to acquire the technology and then blown the living shit out of Stalin and his buddies. Even the Red Army would piss its pants when facing Atomic America.

[Belize]

We could've produced more before the Soviets had a chance to acquire the technology.

Except they were also working on theirs. They had spies in the Manhattan Project and knew of the Atomic Bombs. Plus I don't think you understand the consequences of using atomic weapons, and neither did we back in the days.

You have to remember that most people thought atomic weapons would light up the atmosphere. You can't just go around dropping them willy nilly. You might want to calm down your "LETS BOMB THEM YEAH!" side and look at things objectively. Invading Russia just wasn't feasible.

[DocHibb]

so, after WWII and them playing a major role in defeating the Nazis, we immediately decide to begin another huge conflict and then end the conflict we started by dropping atomic bombs, ending potentially millions of more lives (and veterans of the war against the nazis).

Seems like a twisted logic

[Belize]

so, after WWII and them playing a major role in defeating the Nazis, we immediately decide to begin another huge conflict and then end the conflict we started by dropping atomic bombs, ending potentially millions of more lives (and veterans of the war against the nazis).

Seems like a twisted logic

B-b-but the Russians are bad!

[Charmanderp]

No, Honestly most people (in the US at least) don't seem to notice they played a part at all. They don't teach you that shit in US History class.

[DEATHETERNAL]

Since people today seem to think they would have won the war without America or without Britain, yes. All three of the main Allies were required to win the war against Germany without the deployment of nuclear weapons.

Had Britain fallen, America's ability to operate in Europe and launch any sort of invasion would have been severely handicapped. Germany would have been able to concentrate almost all of the military might and recourses it spent in Western Europe fighting the Soviets, and the Soviets would have almost certainly fallen. America would have then either negotiated a white peace with the Axis powers prior to the creation of nuclear weapons, or America would have eventually deployed nuclear weapons if the Axis power was unwilling to negotiate a peace and the war carried on. Without Britain, Germany would have won, or America would have won while turning a large portion of Europe (and likely America as well if Germany and Japan had been able to mount some sort of invasion by that time) into nuclear wasteland.

Had the Soviets fallen, Germany would have been able to concentrate vastly more recourses against Britain, and Britain would almost certainly have fallen. The war would then proceed similarly to how it would have if Britain and then the Soviets fell.

Had America not funded the Allies before becoming one of them, one or both of Britain and the Soviets could have fallen which would again result in a redirection of German recourses to defeat the other. Had America not joined the war, Germany would yet again not have had to dedicate the amount of recourses and men to Western Europe that it did almost certainly resulting in the fall of the Soviets.

No matter how you slice it, all three of the Allied powers were required for any result other than an Axis victory or an eventual American victory at the cost of deploying potentially hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Except they were also working on theirs. They had spies in the Manhattan Project and knew of the Atomic Bombs.

The Soviets would never have been able to develop their own in time.

[tangers58]

Sure, they fought the most Germans but they also received a crap ton of aid from the US and UK. Without all that money and equipment, the Soviets would've been royally screwed. But seriously, the Soviets started the war alongside Germany with their invasion of Poland. They were just as bad, if not worse than Germany. Then after the war, they're painted as heroes, despite raping over 2 million German women. Its sickening. We should've invaded and taken these bastards out right after the war.

No, actually they don't get anywhere nearly enough credit, at least not in any history class before college. Was the Soviet government made up of a big pile of douche? Yes. Did their soldiers do more the US's? Also yes. The Soviets and British won the war in Europe, America just takes the credit. Most of what the US accomplished was selling weapons to the real fighters.

The US and Britain together would have eventually won without the Soviets, but it would have taken much, much longer.

[Omgodzilla]

No, actually they don't get anywhere nearly enough credit, at least not in any history class before college. Was the Soviet government made up of a big pile of douche? Yes. Did their soldiers do more the US's? Also yes. The Soviets and British won the war in Europe, America just takes the credit. Most of what the US accomplished was selling weapons to the real fighters.

The US deployed over 12 million troops in WW2 and funded much of the allied war effort. Without them, the allies would've been royally fucked. That's not even counting the role they played in bitchslapping Japan. I'm not saying the other allied forces didn't play important roles but the US was definitely critical.

[Bakis]

If OP had any interest in an actual discussion he would not start with such obvious one-sided bias.
Just flamebaiting like his Palestine/feminist thread.

[Adam Jensen]

I dunno, they lost 20 million people and still managed to zergrush Berlin. So I think they get a pretty good portion of the credit.

[Omgodzilla]

so, after WWII and them playing a major role in defeating the Nazis, we immediately decide to begin another huge conflict and then end the conflict we started by dropping atomic bombs, ending potentially millions of more lives (and veterans of the war against the nazis).

Seems like a twisted logic

We went to war against Germany because it was a sick and twisted regime. The Soviets weren't much better than them. Infact, they might've even been worse in some ways.

[Jaxi]

No, Honestly most people (in the US at least) don't seem to notice they played a part at all. They don't teach you that shit in US History class.

History curriculum must have changed radically since I left school. We were always taught that each of the three major allies against Nazi Germany brought something different: the USSR with the manpower, Great Britain with time, and America with industrial might (lend-lease program).

[Omgodzilla]

I dunno, they lost 20 million people and still managed to zergrush Berlin. So I think they get a pretty good portion of the credit.

They received huge amounts of financial aid and equipment from the US and UK. Lets not forget that.

[Adam Jensen]

We went to war against Germany because it was a sick and twisted regime. The Soviets weren't much better than them. Infact, they might've even been worse in some ways.

Doesn't really change the fact that they were the ones who were raising the hammer and sickle over Berlin.

We sided with the USSR because we had a common enemy with them in Germany. It did not take long, only a few years, before we were almost at war with the USSR after that. The Berlin Airlift was one of the opening moves of the Cold War and it was only three years after WWII ended.