Should we have sided with Adolf Hitler and the Axis Powers in WWII against the Soviet Union?

[TheSpartan]

Join with Hitler to fight communism

Join with Stalin to fight national socialism

[MackFreeze]

Hitler wanted to attack the US and was planing on it. We all would be dead probably, so would all black, gay people in America at the time. Communism was terrible, however without Stalins help we probably wouldn't have won, or at least cost hunderds of lives more than America has given. We origionally were going to nuke Germany, yet didn't and did Japan. So I would assume if we didn't side with Russia but still wanted to fight Hitler, we would have nuked them. Germany would be ruins and what we know Germany to be today would be completly gone. No evidence of intermit camps of Jews, or at least not many. All the jews captured or some would be nuked, german Citizens would die as well.

What we did was the best choice.

The USSR was disbanded is 91 I think, so either way it was going to end and avoiding war was the best thing we could have done.

Besides, the US values are strongly against those of Hitlers. The American soldiers would never fight for such a thing willingly. Notice, the War got the US out of the depression, the war industry boomed and created hundreds of thousands of jobs. The American people were figthing oppression and evil, Japan attacked us and was part of the Axis Powers too, so joining the Axis would be joining those who bombed us and in so turning on all those men and women who died on Pearl Harbor in vain. No possible way the American people would willingly fight with Hitler.

Hitler made a pact with Russian, then Hitler turned on Russia and tried to wipe them out but failed.

[Blitzkrieger]

they should only have joined operation barbarossa.

[Blitzkrieger]

operation barbarossa was a preemptive attack against the soviet union because they were only one month away from launching operation groza. operation groza was the operation by stalin to invade all of Europe. operation barbarossa sabotaged operation groza.

for those questioning the existence of operation groza, go to moscow, to the russian archives and ask for the so-called "Osobaya Papka", a file which contains about 100,000 Top Secret documents. ask for file Nr.103202/06. that file is about operation groza.

[shortguyloser]

Did you invent the number yourself?

[Blitzkrieger]

@shortguyloser a russian guy wrote 3 books about it in 1994, the last one was published in 2004. He used historical records from the russian archives themselves.

[Blitzkrieger]

Igor bunich is his name.

[shortguyloser]

His books are in "folk-history" genre, that means they are not recognized by professional historians.

[shortguyloser]

Why do you call yourself a supporter of European brotherhood if you support the person who wanted to exterminate all Slavs (White people)? He allied with Muslims and Asians to do that. And yet brainwashed Neo-Nazis think Hitler fought for the White people.

[Blitzkrieger]

@shortguyloser is that why slavs joined the waffen-SS volunteers to fight bolshevism? germany didn't need to invade the soviet union to exterminate slavs, stalin was already doing that.

[shortguyloser]

They joined SS because they would die otherwise. Hitler killed Ukrainians, Poles, Belorussians and Russians by starving them to death and sending them to death camps. He is a traitor of the White race.

At least nobody calls Stalin a hero of the White race.

[Blitzkrieger]

@shortguyloser he sent communists to these camps. there is a fundamental difference between race and a political ideology such as communism...

[SilverRain92]

You are so disgusting. If Nazis took control over the territory of Soviet Union they would have attacked the United States later. Do you want to live in global Third Reich?

[Blitzkrieger]

@SilverRain92 instead we have gotten an iron curtain and communism which destroyed half of Europe.

[shortguyloser]

What? He didn't sent communists there, he sent common people! You are so delusional.

[shortguyloser]

What do you mean by "destroyed half of Europe"? Hitler would have destroyed half of Europe by killing all Slavs, while communists didn't destroy anything, they rebuilt their half of Europe after the war. Even though they had Iron Curtain and other unpleasant stuff, they were better than Nazis.

[SilverRain92]

Soviet Union did not destroy half of Europe, lol. It saved Europe from genocides, ethnic cleansings and racism. Yes, I recognize that communist regimes in Europe opressed freedom of speech and some other freedoms, but they weren't aimed to destroy any social or ethnic groups of people at least after 1945. Many of Eastern European countries had better economic and demographic indicators then they have now

[shortguyloser]

@SilverRain92 Come on, this guy is blind and brainwashed just like many other people. They don't even know what the word communism means but think it's the worst thing that ever existed. At the same time they worship Hitler as a hero.

[TheSpartan]

@SilverRain92 LMAO is this a joke?

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser Hitler was a far-better man that Joseph Stalin. I doubt this could even be debated.

[shortguyloser]

Better in what? Killing other people? Sure.

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser clearly not, because he killed far-fewer people lmao

The Holocaust started in early 1943 due to losses on the Eastern-front. The plan was always relocation of the Jewry, but this changed to extermination once it was realized that the Soviets were making advances. It was a response to a desperate situation in war.

Stalin's genocides, on the other hand, occurred during peace-time. The two aren't even remotely-comparable.

[shortguyloser]

WTF is this bullshit, Holocaust started way before 1943. And why the hell does it even matter? Hitler killed more people than Stalin. Stalin killed about 4 million people, Hitler killed way more.

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser I've been studying WWII history since I was 4-years-old, so I'll share some knowledge.

The interment process began as far back as 1933 with Kristallnacht, when 30,000 Jews were interned into camps as a response to the public Jewish "declaration of war" on Germany. As time went on, Jewish citizenship was revoked, and more Jews were put into internment camps with the eventual goal of relocation. Hitler began working with the World Zionist Organization to create a homeland for the Jews in Palestine, Israel, but this plan was halted by the British Mandate. The plan of relocation remained in place for some time.

Once the war broke out, things changed. The goal then became to create a Jewish reservation somewhere in either Poland or Ukraine, where Jews could run their own nations. The Nazi authorities planned to execute this after finishing the war with Great Britain, but everything changed after Operation Barbarossa.

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser Hitler claimed that German intelligence showed a mounting Soviet force along the borders of the Reich, and that Barbarossa was a preemptive-strike against this Soviet invasion. Whether or not Hitler's claims were true is still debated among historians, but Barbarossa was remarkably-successful--until the United States began offering logistical support to the Soviets. The United States supplied more than half of the Soviet munitions, as well as 90% of their vehicles, to stop the German expanse into Russia. After the outnumbered German defeat at Stalingrad in 1942, everything turned for the worst. The Nazis were seeing defeats all-along the Eastern Front, and their Italian allies to the South were also crumpling.

This is when the Final Solution to the Jewish problem was finally rolled-out. Historians say that, in late 1942, the top German Nazi authorities (including Hitler, Himmler, and Goring) met to discuss what could be done about the Jews currently interred in camps.

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser We don't know what was discussed at the meeting--the minutes have been lost to history, likely burned towards the end of the war--but we know what Himmler and his lieutenants took away from it: all the Jews currently-interred must be executed. We don't have stated records from Hitler detailing this, but we can assume this was done with is knowledge.

Death camps, ovens, and gas chambers were immediately built and rolled-out, and that's when the Final Solution phase of the Holocaust finally began. Almost all the deaths were caused within that period between 1943-1945. A few camps, like Belzic, were built in 1942, but major camps like Auschwitz-Birkenau were not equipped with the equipment for the operation until 1943.

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser As for Stalin, that is an UNBELIEVABLY-wrong claim. Stalin's government executed approximately 800,000 political dissidents between 1932-1952, and another 2-3 million died in the Gulags. Another 7-10 million Ukrainians were PURPOSEFULLY starved-to-death by Joseph Stalin between 1932-1933. This is also ignoring millions of Kulaks who were starved-to-death in Russia itself, as well as 5-million-more where purposefully starved under Lenin.

[shortguyloser]

Hitler starved even more Eastern Europeans. So what's your point?

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser lol no he didn't. War doesn't count, my friend.

[shortguyloser]

Purposefully killing people to liberate space for German colonists doesn't count? Dude, you are so brainwashed.

I can't understand where this obsession with Hitler comes from. Why do Neo-Nazis worship a traitor of the White race who was 1/4 Jewish? How can one be THAT retarded?

[SilverRain92]

It's truth, nobody is joking here. You are just brainwashed, Spartan. You don't see many obvious things and don't know much about WWII

[TheSpartan]

@shortguyloser I'm not a neo-nazi lmao. If I "worship" anyone, then it's Pinochet.

I'm saying that destruction during a war can hardly be called "genocide", especially since the whole of Eastern-Europe was a battleground.

[shortguyloser]

You say communists are evil but they didn't starve Germans to death and were much merciless than German in Eastern Europe. Surely, they had some atrocities too like raping local women and stuff like that, but it's nothing compared to what Germans did to the Soviets. Especially considering that many Soviets lost their families and homes during the war and it was hard for them not to revenge the Germans for that.

[shortguyloser]

*merciful, not merciless

[Izumiblu]

No, we should have immediately gone to war with Russia following the surrender of Germany to reclaim eastern Europe.

[EvanR]

Even if that happened (which it almost did, Churchill wanted to do that) we'd probably be in worse shape. Britain's population was already depleted from WW1 & 2, the USSR had loads more land (and people) and are a lot closer to Europe. If an invasion of the USSR were to occur, the troops in the Pacific theatre should've invaded USSR from Siberia and the troops in Europe stay on the defense.

[milantb1]

Reclaim? You have to claim it first in order to reclaim it

[SilverRain92]

In order to destroy the Western Europe? Such a terrible opinion. Do you really think that the United States could win this war with several atomic bombs, lol? Communism was very popular in France and Italy right after the war.

[Izumiblu]

@SilverRain92 you didn't just throw France and Italy in there did you... I mean... like if you did.. ok *shrug

[SilverRain92]

Soviet Union had much more tanks at that time and could easily destroy American and British troops in Europe though it didn't have strong Navy in order to invade Great Britain or the United States. Ask your grandparents or anyone who lived at that time about their opinion: whether they wanted to fight against Soviet Union in 1945 and why. I am sure that their answers would urge you to think about this issue more deeply.

[HGG3805]

War is not the answer to any question. It is nice to intellectually discuss this historical event but had the Allies invaded Russia at the end of WWII the world as we know it would be changed. Europe was in chaos and pretty well destroyed. True America was at its prime but it would have been pretty tough to convince our allies to start another war. And looking back what problem would that have solved had we taken the USSR out? Saved a lot of lives in Russia perhaps. What would that have cost the US? Sadly I have read that the cold war we had with Russia after the war was a propaganda campaign by our military industrial complex. That USSR was no real threat to us. We were so far advanced over what they could muster, yet we spent huge $$$ to counter the perceived threat of the USSR. Even today, yes Russia can threaten the US and our allies, but they are no competition to our might. Except on the internet and interfering in our elections.

[SilverRain92]

This is very clever opinion. Soviet Union didn't pose a threat to the United States, it just wanted to save its political system but failed because of inefficiency of that system.
There is a very influential lobby inside the United States so called "deep state" which always trying to find a new enemy abroad in order to justify huge military spendings and the necessity of American military bases which are located throughout the world.

[HGG3805]

@SilverRain92 Reagan spent Russia (and the US) into the ground accelerating the cold war during his Presidency. The collapse of the USSR. I totally agree with you. What is the truth and where do you find it? Yes, it seems to be a good way to manipulate the masses by giving them an evil to oppose. Whether it's Russia or Korea or gay marriage or making an issue out of who gets to use what bathroom. So it is pretty obvious the Russians used propaganda to cost Clinton the election. Fake News, indeed. What about the Fake News being used by our own people.

[SilverRain92]

Every country in this world uses its media for propaganda. In order to find the truth people need to compare how mass media present the news in different countries

[madhatters4]

I don't believe we joined stalin to fit national socialism we joined stalin to fight hitler (and his version of racial superiority fascism).

it was the right decision to an extent although we shouldn't have given in to Stalin's power demands after WWII ended

[madhatters4]

another thing to consider (which i just thought of) is each person's ambitions. stalin was content to build his "iron curtain" and help prop up some communist countries around the world whereas Hitler really had continental and global dominance ambitions

[TheSpartan]

On the contrary, Hitler was the one who wanted to build simply a Magna Germania. He would've preferred an alliance with Britain and the United States. Stalin, however, wanted a worldwide workers' revolution, as you can see in China and Korea.

[madhatters4]

that's not worldwide that's two countries. but i do understand and agree he wanted to spread communism. but that's far different than the desire for world or continental domination which is what hitler wanted. if he simply wanted a great germany then why was he invading and occupying other countries? Stalin wasn't occupying or invading China or Korea. he was trying (as many countries including the US do) try to spread a political theory to be applied in other countries.

i'm not saying stalin wasn't a monster. he was for his own reasons but he wasn't bent on expanding the the USSR to consume all of asia or Europe

Stalin and his Communist successors looked to spead communism throughout the world but those countries were still independent whereas hitler was attempting to be leader of a conquered Europe and parts of western Asia

[TheSpartan]

Why do you think he was? France and the United Kingdom declared war on him after he invaded Western Poland. If you want to destroy your enemy, then you invade them. The Greater Germany plan is very, very well-established in mainstream historical inquiry.

[madhatters4]

and he invaded poland dude. generally when you start invading countries and disregarding sovereignty of borders and nations you draw the ire of other countries. and he intended to continue to invade other countries before other nations took up arms against him.

[TheSpartan]

Of course, but what's your point? That's all consistent with his desire to create a Greater Germania. I'm not defending Hitler, but what you're claiming is pseudohistory.

[madhatters4]

my point is he was invading countries prior to military engagement. other countries went to war against hitler because he was invading other nations and violating sovereign border. if you think that's pseudo history then there is no reason to discuss this further as clearly you aren't concerned with facts.
he didn't invade france because the UK and france went to war with him. he invaded france because his plan was to eventually conquer all of Europe which is well documented
he literally stated in his writings that he Aryans and Germany should rule the world

[TheSpartan]

What do you mean? He invaded Poland supposedly to "save" Germans being killed in Western-Poland, then to establish Greater Germany. The United Kingdom and France declared-war immediately after. There were no plans to conquer the whole world for Germany.

[madhatters4]

you need to read more then because hitler stated prior to becoming the leader of germany his belief that aryans and germany will rule the world

and regardless of his reasons for going into poland he violated sovereign borders. those are acts of war that have been the cause of wars for centuries.

[TheSpartan]

LMAO I'm not disagreeing that invading Poland was an act of war. I am, however, saying that it's NOT proof that he wanted to conquer all of Europe or the world, which is what you're claiming. You can't even get your own claims straight, dude.

Yes, he believed the White race would rule the world. What of it? The White race isn't just Germany, which is why he was so willing to make peace with the United Kingdom.

[madhatters4]

he literally wrote that the aryans and germans should conquer the world. i've said that three times now. He literally stated that taken over the world was part of his ideal for the aryan race and german nation

[madhatters4]

he literally wrote that germany needed to expand it's living space until it exclusively dominated the globe

he literally said these things. your argument is that he didn't want to control Europe or the world. he literally said that germany should dominate and inhabit the world... and with that i'm done.

[TheSpartan]

cite me where he says Germany should conquer the world LMAO

[madhatters4]

does writing LMAO somehow make you feel smarter?

Have you ever heard of Mein Kampf? or it's unpublished sequel? in mein kampf specifically there is a chapter called "Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy". which goes into great detail about expanding the german state and eventually inhabiting and dominating the world.

[madhatters4]

a little surprising that someone who tries to engage in any sort of intellectual isn't aware of hitler's very words. serisouly how do you plan to have any conversation about hitler when you seem unaware of his very ideology which isn't hard to find as he did thousands of interviews, published books, made 100s if not thousands of speeches.

[madhatters4]

*intellectual conversation or debate...

[TheSpartan]

He talks about dominating Greater Germany. It says nothing about Germany conquering the world lmao

[madhatters4]

i always love how people can read but not understand. what does expanding the germany inhabitable area mean? what does inhabiting and dominating the world mean to you?

[TheSpartan]

Motherfucker, he's talking about Lebanstraum, which is Greater Germany. He believed the White race would inherently dominate the world.

[madhatters4]

you can believe what you want despite the words be literally written out. lebensraum is an older german concept from the 1800s Hitler's idea of lebensraum is not the same as the original concept. this too, like hitler's literally expressed thoughts are well documented.

next time you insult me needlessly this is over dude. grow up

[TheSpartan]

Cite from Mein Kampf where he says that he wants Germany to conquer the world.

[madhatters4]

expand, inhabitant and dominate is the language specfiically used. as i don't have the book in my possession or own it and since i'm at work i can't cite it but you can google plenty of sources that make reference to the specific passage yourself

[ADFSDF1996]

Maybe only in a strategic alliance. Communism was a bigger threat than national socialism. Chances are that the Cold War would have been against the axis powers though.

[milantb1]

China is still communist today. How many jews have they killed in the last few years?

[TheSpartan]

@milantb1 60 million Chinese people starved during the Great Leap Forward. Six million Jews died during the Holocaust, and that was directly due to the war with Russia.

[SilverRain92]

Do you want to say that Russia is responsible for Holocaust?

[ADFSDF1996]

@milantb1 The communists have persecuted Christians before.

[TheSpartan]

@SilverRain92 No, the war with the Soviet Union is what inevitably led to the Holocaust.

[WeirdoWerdo]

Auchwitz was actually constructed to deal with Soviet soldiers and not jews... But well I guess they didn't have the means of transportation to ship to Auchwitz from Soviet...

[SilverRain92]

Soviet Union was the country who actually put an end to Holocaust. That's why there are a lot of monuments dedicated to Soviet Red Army soldiers in Israel.

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 Just because they helped defeat the third Reich doesn't mean they never committed atrocities, the Katyn Forest massacre was originally blamed on the Germans but recently, it's been discovered that the Soviets were responsible for it. Also, no country can take full credit for defeating the axis powers. It was an alliance of countries (allies) who defeated the axis powers not just one country, that's just wishful thinking that happens in movies and video games.

[SilverRain92]

Nobody says that USSR was a holy country. Every big country commited atrocities in its history. It was the alliance, you are right, but 75 percent of German troops were defeated by Soviets. There were Soviet soldiers who put the flag of their flag on German Reichstag, not American ones. So it's naive to think that the United States could destroy Nazi Germany without the help of the USSR.

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 The actually played a major factor and that Hitler striker first. At the beginning of the war, Germany was making short use of the Soviet troops.

[ADFSDF1996]

*The winter.

[HGG3805]

@milantb1 How many Jews have the Chinese killed in the last few years? Am I missing something? Have the Chinese killed any Jews ever?

[SilverRain92]

ADSDF1996, don't overestimate the role of the winter. Hitler attacked Soviet Union in June 22th and the war in Europe finished almost after 4 years after that.
Hitler has never used Soviet troops. If you mean Poland, the Soviet Union sent troops to this country only after its defeat in order to save its eastern provinces which were populated by Ukrainians and Belorussians and belonged to Soviet Russia until before Polish invasion in 1920.

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 Even General Zhukov admitted that he thought Germany was going to win. The winter did in fact play a major role in the outcome of the Eastern front. The Germans had underestimated the Winter, they were not equipped to deal with such a harsh winter.
www.google.com/.../8-things-you-should-know-about-wwiis-eastern-front

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 The other factor is the lend lease act that provided resources to various nations fighting the third Reich including the USSR.

[SilverRain92]

Yes, I don't deny this

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 There were many factors in the war that lead to the demise of the axis powers which include outnumbering (multiple fronts), low resources and the industrial might of the allies.

[SilverRain92]

I don't deny that lend lease played an important role. Neither I do it in case of winter. But actually Hurler was going to destroy Soviet army during several months and didn't suppose that he would fail. The half of Soviet army was destroyed during the first days of war. But only due to the courage and self-sacrifice of ordinary Soviet people who worked without sleeping in order to provide army with military supplies USSR could win that war. This is the most important factor.

[SilverRain92]

*Hitler

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 There's no doubt that the Soviet Union did play a major role in the fall of the third Reich but the only reasons why the USSR managed to stand their ground was because of the factors I mentioned which are large numbers, the winter, the lend lease and poor decision making on Hitler's part. Germany could have repelled a soviet invasion had Germany waited for the soviets to strike first. It wasn't just Russians who fought for the USSR, it was also various Eastern European countries that helped the Soviets, like Poland, Ukraine etc. Even people from Mongolia served in red army.

[ADFSDF1996]

Some of Hitler's poor decisions were invading Western Europe, Southern Europe and parts of Northern Europe. He also had troops in the North African campaign. Which means the German army was divided in two.

[SilverRain92]

No, the major factor why Soviet Union won a war weren't lend lease and winter. And Ukraine was not a country it was the part of the Soviet Union as well. I don't deny the contribution of people from other countries though. But I still think that the major factor which contributed to the victory of Soviet Union was the courage and self-sacrifice of Soviet people who could quickly recover its country economy and destroyed Nazi troops invaded their Motherland.
Hitler was a very good planner, his plan would have worked when he has invaded in other countries. But he considered that Soviet Russia is just like any other country which he occupied before and this was his fatal mistake.

[SilverRain92]

But he sent his 75 percent troops to the Eastern front

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 Technically that's what a lot Russian schools teach but to the schools I went here in the states, the credit for the outcome is evenly divided but it's attributed to Hitler's bad planning, instead of leaving the planning to his generals, he made a lot of the planning. Each country that took part in fighting the axis likes to claim full credit in the defeat of the axis, when in reality the true credit should be divided between those countries.

[SilverRain92]

Destroying of 75 percent of German troops and Japanese Imperial Kwantung army located in Northeast China by the Soviet Union is a fact. But it's not diminishing the contribution of other states who fought against the Axis powers.

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 While it's true that a lot of Germans lost their lives on the Eastern, a lot those deaths cannot be attributed to the skill and precision of the red army. It's been said that each German soldier on the Eastern front could slay approximately more than 10 red army soldiers.

As for the Kwantung army, those were foreign troops taken from the Imperial Japanese colonies. Based on how badly the imperial Japanese treated them, it can be assumed that their morale was low.

[SilverRain92]

It's not true. They didn't kill so much soldiers, but they killed a lot of civilians, they organized genocide much bigger than Holocaust (this is the reason why Soviet Union lost about 27 million people and most of them were civilians)

[SilverRain92]

You can't say that Red Army wasn't enough skillful because they continue to fight and won after the loss of one half of troops during the first days of war.
Lol, it's also not true. The

Lol, it's also not true. Kwantung Army mostly consisted of ethnic Japanese

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 The Soviet Union simply had a nearly endless supply of soldiers. No matter how many reds the Germans cut down, more would keep coming.

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 the Kwantung army did have a ethnic Japanese leadership but it also had Korean soldiers.

[SilverRain92]

Not only leadership, most of soldiers were ethnic Japanese, though maybe there were some ethnic Koreans, but they weren't majority

[SilverRain92]

That's not true. Many of Soviet people who fought against Germany weren't soldiers. They were just patriots of their own country who didn't want letting Germans to occupy Soviet Union. Women and children worked on plants in order to create weapons and military supplies. Their courage helped Soviet Union to destroy Nazism much more than lend lease or winter

[ADFSDF1996]

@SilverRain92 I know, the majority weren't soldiers. They were poorly trained and a lot of them were used as canon fodder. It was mostly the commissars who had training and are said to have been ruthless and cruel who treated POWS, civilians and even their own soldiers badly. The soviets mostly relied on their large numbers rather than precision and military prowess. This is why the Germans came close to defeating them but then winter happened and Germany had their spare troops in the West and in Africa.

[HGG3805]

Interesting premise. If only we could rewrite history. Hitler was surprised when England and the US opposed his efforts. He really expected us to join his efforts for world domination. I am a student of history. Would I say the Russians were a bigger threat than the Nazis were. No. Hitler proved what a threat his army was. Remember Hitler had a pact with Stalin not to fight. And we had our hands full. The fall of Germany started when Hitler invaded Russia. Dumb on his part. Then he had TWO major wars to fight.

We may not approve of the behaviors of the Russians after WWII but they have not attacked Europe. Or bombed the US. We are the most powerful country in the world for the moment. My Japanese wife says we need to fear China.

[SilverRain92]

Bravo , there are some people on GAG who know history. 👍
I believe that great powers emerge and then disappear or being replaced by another great power. It's a natural historical process. When China gets the permanent access to the high technologies and solves its demographic and social welfare problems it will replace the United States.

[Dale1982]

We should have attacked the Soviet union the rebellion started and those Zionist devil's took over the country. If we get rid of the Zionists about 95% of the world's problems disappear. Everywhere those greedy, anti-life bastards go poverty, lies, murder, theft and the rest of the evil spectrum flourish. Every important figure in history has condemned them from Greek philosophers through to Lincoln and Franklin. No smoke without fire. They're more a threat to life on this planet than a mile wide meteor inbound at 60k per hour

[Mexicoman101]

Anybody who rounds up a population of peoplr based on involuntary circumstances of their birth for purposes of forced labor, medical experimentation without anesthesia, & mass extermination must be killed as soon as possible. I don't care about their economic system, its about preventing any one force on earth from dominating the planet and committing genocide for retarded/sadistic reasons.

[TheSpartan]

So, you agree that we should've attacked the Soviets, then?

[Mexicoman101]

Yeah in an ideal world we would have been able to attack them both. Our usage of the soviets as allies was one of convenience since they were fighting the Japanese and Nazi's.

[Anon85]

Wouldn't have won the war at all if we did. The only reason we were able to stop the Axis Powers in the first place was because of Russia. What was happening in Russia was indeed worse than Nazi Germany, but one was far more pressing. Russia was far too powerful and Germany would have decimated our forces as soon as the newly-formed alliance inevitably crumbled

[TheSpartan]

The Soviet Union would've crumpled under an American and German coalition.

[SilverRain92]

And then Germany together with Japan would have conquered Great Britain and the United States and would have organized Holocaust and genocides of other ethnic groups throughout the world

[jansoka]

Stalin was also a great murderer and commited many crimes but He never Tried to erediate whole ethnicities so fighting Hitler First (And rearm Germany again as fast AS possible) was the best idea (Also For my ancestors Who Had the luck to Fight at the Western Front)

[EvanR]

Personally I think it would be more interesting if America, Britain and Canada all formed a neutrality pact, primarily to wait out the war and let them fight it out. Stalin wouldn't survive because of Germany's military might, but then again that Russian winter...
To answer your question, either join the rooskies or the krauts, I'd join the krauts.

[milantb1]

Germany lost 6million troops to the soviet union and 400k to america and the uk. If you did that the whole of Europe would have been communist

[VerbalWN]

You assume Hitler would of recognized a neutrality pack. There were several countries that Hitler invaded the had claimed neutrality.

[fueledbythc]

Siding with the soviet union was the lesser of the two evils. The allied forces knew they needed the soviets to take out the nazis because their war tactics wouldn't work in Russia. Too many people, too harsh of a winter and the ability to pump out weapons and tanks so fast after the nazis destroyed them there would be more waiting.

[Anonymous]

No fuck Nazi. Sided with what? Taking over the whole Europe? At least the Soviets didn't took action on actually taking over Europe.. also what's the result? Soviet Union collapsed didn't it? If you helped Nazi to take over the whole Europe I think Europe would still be in dark Nazi regime.

[TheSpartan]

Europe would undoubtedly be better off. The Soviet victory in WWII was directly-responsible for the 60 million dead Chinese in the Great Leap Forward. No thanks.

[DefinitelySane]

The Soviets weren't the aggressors in that war. It would have made no sense for the rest of the allies to also declare war on them.

[TheSpartan]

They invaded Poland and annexed half of Europe.

[casscade]

yes but they were still a part of the allied forces

[casscade]

for most of the part

[TheSpartan]

@casscade yes, and they shouldn't have been.

[DefinitelySane]

They weren't attacking the other Allies, and as of Operation Barbarossa they were the most important part of the fight against the Nazis, who were invading everyone around them. There was no reason for any of the Allies to invade them, especially since they were already strained fighting the Nazis.

[TheSpartan]

You misunderstand me. I'm saying we should've allied with Hitler to fight the Soviets.

[casscade]

WHY?

[DefinitelySane]

Hitler didn't attack the Soviets until halfway through the war. Would everyone have just switched sides to help the guy who was bombing the shit out of them and conquering France? Nobody was going to do that, especially given that Hitler was a way bigger threat and the USSR wasn't doing much to them.

[casscade]

also communism isn't as bad as nazism

[TheSpartan]

@casscade communism is far, far worse than national socialism. They aren't even in the same ballpark.

[casscade]

communism itself isn't , especially the Marxist Idealogy

[casscade]

it's corrupt communism

[casscade]

that is bad

[TheSpartan]

Why? Because Hitler was simply fighting a regional war with Poland at first. It should've stayed a regional war, and when the Soviets began their planned invasion of Europe (which we're aware they were planning), an alliance with Hitler would've proved valuable to wipe-out communism before it infected China, Eastern-Europe, and Indochina.

[TheSpartan]

@casscade Marxism itself is a corrupt, evil ideology completely at odds with nature.

[DefinitelySane]

For the record, Stalin wasn't actually comminist, he was Stalinist, and he did kill more people. However, Hitler and his Nazism tried way harder to kill people, led a thorough campaign of hate, and precipitated one of the biggest genocides in history, redefining humanity's perception of evil. The Nazis were worse, we just got rid of them faster. That being said, nobody went to war because Hitler was a hateful dictator.

[casscade]

and capitalism isn't?
@TheSpartan

[TheSpartan]

@casscade of course not. Capitalism is consistent with the reality that not all humans are equal.

[casscade]

yes but capitalism is only worsening matters , because if capitalism could be limited to developed countries it wouldn't have been and issue , but the thing about capitalism is that it goes unchecked , therefore it leads to the social and economic exploitation of people from impoverished or underdeveloped nations , and if I were to choose between communism and capitalism for a nation that is impoverished I'd go with communism any day of the week

[TheSpartan]

Stalin was absolutely a communist, and he acted as every other communist leader does. He committed mass genocides in Ukraine that made the Holocaust look like nothing.

And, for the record, the only reason the Germans perpetrated the "Holocaust" is due to the war in Russia. There's a reason that the order for the Final Solution to the Jewish Problem wasn't given out until late 1942, and that's because of the war with the Soviet Union. The original plan was *always* deportation, either to Palestine or a reservation in Eastern-Europe. There would've been no Holocaust or other genocide if not for the Eastern Front.

[TheSpartan]

@casscade hah, what a joke. Take a look at the economic freedom rankings for these third-world countries. You'll notice that they're all the furthest things from capitalist.

[casscade]

yes because first world nations never exploit third world nations , only a nutjob would think that haha

[DefinitelySane]

If you guys are going to argue over capitalism, can you do it in another comment thread so I don't have to get notifications about it?

I know Stalin killed more people. That's irrelevant to WWII. You can't blame Hitler's murders on him either, especially considering he was the idiot who opened up the Eastern Front in the first place. Also, if you put Holocaust in quotation marks it makes you look like one of the idiots who don't think it happened.

[TheSpartan]

@casscade you didn't address my point. Show me some economically-free, capitalist third-world nations that don't have booming economies.

[casscade]

will do my dude @DefinitelySane

[casscade]

@TheSpartan , I'd love to discuss this elsewhere if you'll have me

[DefinitelySane]

Thanks bud. My phone's blowing up enough as is.

[casscade]

nah dw about it : )

[TheSpartan]

@casscade where else?

[casscade]

errm you could pm me?

[TheSpartan]

@casscade sure

[RWoll]

I don't know if we should have, but I wonder how the world would look like if we did...

[milantb1]

Just a casual nazi post. Do you realize the nazis killed 0 black people? Every single person they killed was white so they probably would have killed you too

[TheSpartan]

How is this a pro-Nazi post?

[SilverRain92]

It's not a pro-Nazi post, it's just a post written by a person who doesn't have a clue about WWII history

[jansoka]

They killed black people of you remember black gis

[TheSpartan]

@SilverRain92 I've been reading WWII history books since I was 6 years old. I am well-aware of WWII history.

[SilverRain92]

It doesn't seem like you have read good books which fully describe it if you ask these kind of questions 😅

[HGG3805]

I don't know if that is actually true. Nazi's considered Black people to be a lessor race. That is why Jesse Owens embarrassed their Aryan race at the 1935 Olympics. There were Black people in the countries the Nazi's invaded. I doubt if they gave the Black people a free pass out.

[jansoka]

And everytime when they captured a black GI they have him flowers and a Plane ticket Back to the USA?

[Anonymous]

Churchill should've just accepted the peace treaty offered, remember at the time no one knew about the holocaust

[TheSpartan]

At the time, it hadn't moved into the execution phase.

[jansoka]

The britians knew about the concentration Camps at least since 1938.
These Camps were "Just" Work Camps to let the inmates die from the overwork but also there many of them died

[Anonymous]

I'm impressed by stupidity of this question. Do you really think that the United States and Great Britain could win a war with Germany without a help from Soviet Union? If Germany had got the control over Russian natural resources and economy noone would be able to stop Nazis from conquering the world

[sinkotopius]

Both were mad-men that wanted their own versjon of what was best for their people.

[TheUglyMonk]

Adolf would've been a bigger problem if we focused on defeating the Soviets.

[cth96190]

Patton was right. So was Hitler.

[WeirdoWerdo]

As a Swede we were kinda on both sides...

[WeirdoWerdo]

Axis - allies.

[VerbalWN]

I read that the Swiss were a little more harsher with there treatment of allied airmen. Then Sweden was.

[WeirdoWerdo]

Sweden shot down any plane didn't matter if it was German or British or Norwegian. Sweden wanted to stay "neutral"...

[VerbalWN]

There were some bombings in Switzerland during the war too.

[WeirdoWerdo]

Soviet bombed Stockholm and Pajala... The Swedes we fighting a "unofficial" u-boat war with ze soviets.. (Those bombings were somehow accidents... Dont ask me how you can mistake Stockholm for any other city)

[VerbalWN]

Didn't they kind of give support to Finland with their fight with Russia?

[WeirdoWerdo]

Yes we did :3 8000 volunteers and food and guns

[VerbalWN]

I would imagine that Russia would if been pissed about that.

[WeirdoWerdo]

Well they paid back for all damages done so win win

[Titanic1912]

I'm glad we were with Stalin! Hitler was evil!

[tartaarsaus]

No, I'd rather not. Fuck the nazi's.

[SuccessfulHornDog]

They're both bad, but we made the right decision

[bondobilly]

Both where evil, committed mass murder.

[Triggering]

Sure why tf not

[Anonymous]

nope