Anonymous #2 3w

The correct answer is, he had multiple inspirations. American segregation practice, Turkish genocide strategy, Soviet purges and pogroms, British and French imperial expansion, all wrapped into one with German industrial efficiency.

29

Anonymous #3 3w

But it’s obvious why there are parallels to Nazis 1. Because they’re the nazis 2. Because World War II is still in our memory as a nation. My grandma still tells me about the war, obviously it’s a massive thing in history books. Etc

43

Anonymous #2 3w

He literally wrote he was inspired by American segregation. He actually even PRAISED us for establishing a pure race system. He did have other places he took aspects from but as the other person said, there can be multiple sources of inspiration.

29

Anonymous #2 3w

What 4 & 5 said are correct but also you know it’s the Soviet Union that defeated Nazi Germany. They killed far more Nazis than any other country & also lost the most troops to Germany as well. Obviously other countries like the U.S. helped & played a role but the whole solo thing you said is ridiculous.

17

Anonymous #4 3w

Correction, the pogroms happened under the tsars. If you did a pogrom in the Soviet Union you got sent to a gulag.

9

Anonymous #8 3w

the soviets only won because hitler was too proud to admit his soldiers should bring winter uniforms. he kept them in their summer uniforms and yes, the soviets did burn everything so the nazis couldn't use it, but that doesn't mean they could've kept up that fight. look at d-day. although the germans didn't know americans would specifically be there, it was heavily fortified and they lit em up but they won.

1

Anonymous #13 3w

That was not the only reason

8

Anonymous #1 3w

except that none of the people who actually financed the nazi project were tried, only the political class. the industrial capitalists who profited off of the slave camps turned extermination camps were actually compensated for their loss of “assets” during allied bombing campaigns

31

Anonymous #5 3w

Yes, he wrote that to discredit us. He also claimed to be a socialist, do you believe that too?

5

Anonymous #2 3w

I think it was the biggest factor, yes. the nazis flew through russia and had they had winter garments I think they would've taken moscow. don't get me wrong, the soviets did put up a hell of a fight

1

Anonymous #11 3w

And it didn’t matter 🩷

0

Anonymous #6 3w

Thing is, our ww2 concentration camps weren’t as bad as Germany’s. They were bad, but they got enough calories and weren’t shot for sport like the Germans did

8

Anonymous #14 3w

Nope.

0

Anonymous #13 3w

Soviets had same shortages of uniforms as the Nazis, which came down to a logistical problem something the Nazis always had throughout multiple campaigns

11

Anonymous #13 3w

In addition, the Soviets were always going to eventually win, without or without allied help. The impact of lend lease was far less than Stalin made it out to be, and the contribution to the western front, while massive, was not always necessary. Basically Mr.stalin would’ve just sent more soldiers and eventually take Berlin

10

Anonymous #6 3w

If we didn’t drop the bombs, even more people would have died. It was an unfortunate but necessary move to end the war.

9

Anonymous #20 3w

That’s just not true and for the second bomb, I think they knew it (not just in retrospect)

7

Anonymous #20 3w

Then why was only 1/7 of the top generals for it at the time

5

Anonymous #3 3w

There are many analysis / videos about it but they’re like each an hour long And yes it is still debated by historians But the main reason why they surrendered was the societs

1

Anonymous #3 3w

It was a combination of everything and to point at one reason for Japanese surrender ignores the other parts. Also at tht time it was civilian administration and military. Soviet declaration of war heavily weighed on the military not so much for the civilian and the bombs were the reverse.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

If he acted like a socialist then yes I would have. Even if he wrote it to discredit us you have to admit there are stark similarities, no?

1

Anonymous #5 3w

Not especially? Not in the Jim Crow South, not a whole lot of similarities to Nazi Germany, since the Americans didn’t try to deport all the black people nor did they round them up into concentration camps. Again, he was just trying to legitimise his position and delegitimise us.

1

Anonymous #13 3w

They flew through Russia because Stalin sat there for weeks with his thumb up his ass when Hitler betrayed him. The lack of winter preparedness is overblown with the Nazis. It was the Soviet access to American equipment and the Allies engaging on other fronts that pushed the Germans out of Russia.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

That’s not the part that the modeled after Jim Crow, the part they modeled after that is the Nuremberg laws

1

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

You’re using the old “Russia used human wave tactics” myth. It absolutely was lend lease that saved the Soviets. Their equipment was, in every single instance, fucking awful. They would’ve been creamed like spinach if not for the arms and armour donated by America. Russia was never gonna win the war with the T-34 lol

1

Anonymous #2 3w

The T-34 literally won WWII what are you talking about 😭

1

Anonymous #10 3w

We were neither the first nor the last people to come up with laws like that. Again, he knew America would be his only enemy so he tried to legitimise himself using us. People have been making discriminatory laws of that nature since as long as laws have existed. Shit, there were basically Nuremberg Laws against Jews in England before Columbus even came out his daddy’s garlic-flavoured dick

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Lend lease contributed very little to the Soviet War effort. And yes the human wave myth is false, propagandized by films such as enemy at the gates. However, while higher estimates place lend lease equaling to 10% of total Soviet production, 2% of total lend lease was delivered in 41, 14% in 42, 27% in 43, 35% in 44, and 21% in 45. Any sort of significant aid was supplied after the liberation of Stalingrad, well into the start of the collapse of the Germans. 1/2

0

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

Without lend lease u wouldn’t see large offensives and counter attacks such as operation bagration, however u would still see offensives, just much smaller in scale, and at that point in the war the Soviets had such a significant advantage, it was going to be over, its just a question of when and how many lives lost 2/2

1

Anonymous #10 3w

As much as I will glorify the Soviets, the t-34 was kinda shit. Quality control issues, cheap materials, poor quality welding. It was the Soviets response and they utilized it, however it was still a shit tank. At the end of the day Soviets still won over Germany so ig they had to do smt right

1

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

The important metric for being a good tank is if it achieves war aims. The T-34 clearly did, and they could go toe to toe with the panzer, which took much more time and money to produce. A shit tank is one that can’t achieve its aims and is far too costly to produce, like the panzer.

5

Anonymous #10 3w

Sure, on the micro scale though it was shit. Ofc tank stats and armor doesn’t define a war, which much more reliant on production capabilities. On the macro it could be argued that the Soviets spent so much effort streamlining the tank and cutting corners that with a little bit extra cost you could have a more effective tank, smt smt opportunity costs. Buts it’s always a question of if. Well if my mom had balls she would be my dad, and honestly yea the won, and that’s all tht matters.

1

Anonymous #10 3w

It did not go toe to toe with the panzer effectively, it had a crazy high crew mortality rate, partially because it had terrible accuracy, terrible armor spalling, and nonexistent situational awareness

1

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

They won in spite of the T-34 not because of it

1

Anonymous #10 3w

No, the Germans lost WWII. The T-34 was a hindrance and was the worst tank of the Allies

1

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

Nah, lend lease might’ve been small in number, but it was high in quality. Quality always beats quantity.

0

Anonymous #2 3w

Which is funny, cause the majority of lend lease was oil, food, trucks, and locomotives

1

Anonymous stonesfisch 3w

Good quality oil, good quality food, good quality trucks, and good quality locomotives, in addition to vehicles that were, without fail, praised by Soviet operators as vastly superior to their own in just about every factor, with comfort being the main one. If using an aircraft or tank is a chore like the T-34 or the Sturmovik, you’ll be tired by the time you even get to the fight.

1

Anonymous #20 2w

The primary reason for dropping nuclear bombs on japan was NOT to save american lives. the US government was much more worried about the societ union taking large parts of japan. Japan was ready to surrender to both the soviets and the US before the bombs dropped. the US wanted to be the only architects of a new japan.

4

Anonymous #1 2w

nuremberg let thousands of the worst nazis free and gave many of them stable employment for the rest of their lives.

3

Anonymous #21 2w

one of the main defenses of nazi’s in the nuremberg trials was them claiming they only copied the US. the united state’s camps were if anything more efficient. if i am wrong show me where the 100 million natives are and the 100 million more black americans who have been killed by our regime

1

Anonymous #22 2w

The united states didn't have death camps, gas chambers

1

Anonymous #22 2w

95-99 million of those natives you brought up died of smallpox which they were going to die from upon first contact anyway, there was no saving them

5

Anonymous #22 2w

They were claiming that because the US was trying them not because it was true

1

Anonymous #22 2w

The Nazi rise to power was caused by an economic collapse. If every single business in Germany was destroyed and their owners murdered, that would be worse than the conditions that caused Nazism and we would’ve had to do the same thing again in 20 years time.

1

Anonymous #22 2w

Also 100 million black Americans is an insane number that is not supported by anything whatsoever considering there were less than 11 millions slaves that were ever brought to the new world for the entirety of the 400 years it was a thing, and the majority of that was not America, it was our colonial overlords in Europe

1

Anonymous #21 2w

I feel like this type of logic will kill your ability to see the connections between anything... You can make a valid comparison between two things without them being exactly the same

1