Soviet WWII Role

Yes, yes, the "defense" where you occupy parts of Poland, attack Finland. And of course, providing resources and training facilities to the dear ally in Berlin. There is a reason why soviets always talked about "BoB" and never about WWII - they've entered the latter as allies of Hitler, which does not fit to the soviet victim narrative.

Remember the USSR was allies with the Nazis and only turned on them because they were betrayed.Spending your citizens lives cheaply is not a noble thing.The US had nukes and its manufacturing and soldier population was massive. Coupled with the Western allies Germany was going to lose once America entered the war (see Churchill’s memoirs). USSR did accelerate it though.

Have you red it? My point by marshal USSR Georgy Zhukov on Moscow Victory Parade of 1945 [1]:> By the combined efforts of the great powers of the USSR, USA, UK fascist Germany was defeated in the ashesThat victory was rebirth of USSR. Heroes returned home, no way to rule them as before. But wounds were not allowed to heal, 9 May become day of "we were attacked, still plenty of enemies around". Russians, Czechs, Slovaks, Ukrainians, Georgians, Moldovan (and many others)

The USSR was as bad as the Nazis, if not worse. Arguably a stalemate on the eastern front would have been better than the actual results.

Hopefully, one of the good things that will come out of the Russia-Ukraine War is the eternal shattering of the smug "Ha ha Americans, everyone knows that it's the Soviets that beat the Nazis" notion. Setting aside the total complicity of the Soviets in helping the Germans to dismember Poland in 1939 and attack themselves in 1941, without massive American and British aid Moscow would have fallen in 1941 and the Soviets would have sued for peace in 1942.

Don't forget what Russia did with regards to Poland at the start of the war. They entered into an agreement with Nazi Germany to carve up the country.Russia had a pretty good track history of making territorial conquests. By the time the allies met in Berlin in was apparent Russia wasn't interested in giving back what they gained.

Lest we forget, the Soviet Union did a great deal to allow WW2 to happen in the first place, and fought as an ally of the Nazis initially - and remained friendly and economically supportive all the way up to the German invasion. Orwell was absolutely correct to treat that regime nearly as bad as the Nazis.

> It paid 20X or so more in lives than the US or UK to win WWIIThe USSR's plan was to invade the whole of Europe anyway (Stalin was preparing for it well before Operation Barbarossa started - you can look it up, they had the largest tank division in the world back in the 30s, well above Germany, and with much more powerful tanks that were obviously not going to be used for peaceful purposes).So presenting them as "allied forces" has always felt amusing to me. They showed

From the article: "Of course, the start of the war had been shaped by a Nazi-Soviet pact to carve up the lands in between their borders. Then Hitler turned against the U.S.S.R." Yes, that has a lot to do with why the Soviet Union's undeniable role in the eventual destruction of the Axis armies doesn't always encourage citizens of other Allied countries. Some of us remember that the Second World War might not have started in Europe (it had already started in Asia, really) if t

Speaking of things people pretend not to exist, Russian historiography frames WWII as lasting from 1941 to 1945. The USSR conspired with the Nazis to divide Europe[1], invaded Poland from the east in cooperation with Germany[2], held a joint victory parade when Soviet and German forces met[3], murdered the Polish people in an industrial manner[4], and so forth. Later, it pretended that the war began only in 1941 and that none of this had happened. These events were officially acknowledged only i