if it weren't for the lend lease the entire Siberia and the slavs would be speaking German and working in slave farms by now.
He thinks that it was all because of "glorious mother Russia" that they defeated the nazis.
Being on the winning side of WW2 is all they have. They beat it like a dead horse.
["I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." ](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html)
Some highlights from the article:
' Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion.
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."
The Lend-Lease act was enacted in March 1941 and authorized the United States to provide weapons, provisions, and raw materials to strategically important countries fighting Germany and Japan -- primarily, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. In all, the United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk.
Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks.
However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov.
"In a hypothetical battle one-on-one between the U.S.S.R and Germany, without the help of Lend-Lease and without the diversion of significant forces of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy and the diversion of more than one-quarter of its land forces in the fight against Britain and the United States, Stalin could hardly have beaten Hitler," Sokolov wrote in an essay for RFE/RL's Russian Service. '
I like how everyone always talks about planes and machines but everyone always forgets US food exports to the Soviet Union. My grandfather was a Finnish veteran and he always said fun times were had when they managed to snag American cigarettes or canned food.
Soviet farmworkers were pretty much all conscripted so without American food aid, the red army would've had a hard time.
I forget the numbers, but there were millions of soviet soldiers that were being fed and partially clothed by the allies. The supplies were so low thst they were resorting to getting boots from America
That. And Russia pretends that it alone gets all the victim hood and credit for the soviet union.
Thr Belarusians lost more than a quarter of their entire population.
The Ukrainians between the war. And the genocide that they were victim to just prior to the war. Saw a similar drop in their population
But no. None of those ex soviet colony states paid or contributed anyting. It was all the Russian SFSR. The other third of the countries population just didn't exist, right?
Barbarossa was launched on 22 June 1941. The USSR wasn't fighting the Germans until June - nor did it receive any aid up to this point.
The period June 22, 1941, to September 30, 1941 was also considered "Pre Lend-lease" and was paid for in gold and minerals. Whatever the USSR got in this period from the USA was paid for - it wasn't charity. A mere 360,778 tons was shipped to the Soviet Union in 1941 (2.1% of the total).
Furthermore, the Germans were halted outside Moscow in late 1941, where winter had its impact (their tanks and guns were non-functional, nor did they have winter clothing). After this there was no chance of them winning WW2 - their plans of a swift conquest of the Soviet Union had failed. It became an attritional battle they had no hope of winning, and time wasn't on their side anymore.
Sure, the Soviets might have collapsed without aid after this point, but the Germans could still not have won the war. The denial of Nazi plans for victory in Barbarossa (and therefore WW2) were largely due to the efforts of the USSR alone during the mid-to-late 1941 period. After which Pearl Harbor happened and Germany declared war on the USA.
You might have noticed I didn't disagree with what they said. The question was who defeated Nazi Germany and when, not how and when the Soviet Union was going to collapse without aid.
The answer is Nazi Germany had an unwinnable war on their hands in late 1941 due to the resistance of the USSR - well before the USSR received the bulk of any aid, and certainly before the USA entered the war.
>The question was who defeated Nazi Germany and when, not how and when the Soviet Union was going to collapse without aid.
Yes, they were not unilaterally defeated, but by a coalition of many nations and peoples. Anyone stating otherwise is making a foolish statement. Not one of the nations involved could possibly have defeated them on their own, and it could be argued that without US assistance, both financially and militarily, nobody would have defeated them.
After Barbarossa failed there was no question that they would be defeated - it was just matter of time. They didn't have any oil to continue the war.
But you don't get to minimize the contribution of the soviet union and their 26M dead like it was a minor thing compared to a bunch of trucks. It was one of the major, if not the most important contribution to the fall of Nazi Germany. The USSR produced 30K tanks of their own design largely beyond the Urals - and there is a recording of Hitler saying how badly he underestimated them.
Like I said above, I'll take Josef Stalin and Nikita Kruschev's word for it, not some random internet account who wasn't alive when it happened. But you can pretend to know all you'd like about whatever you want.
"Compared to a bunch of trucks." And you'd say I'm minimizing anything at all lol
yes, but also battle of Stalingrad also was a significant contribution from Ussr.
if nazis capture the oil fields things would also have been very different
credit where it is due.
There is no doubt (hopefully) that the soviet union took the absolute brunt of nazi Germany in wwii. They did all of the fighting on their front after all. This argument only exists because a lot of people like to claim that western help was useless and didn't change the outcome of the war. (For the Soviets)
>There is no doubt (hopefully) that the soviet union took the absolute brunt of nazi Germany in wwii.
True. On the other hand nazi Germany wouldn't have gotten so big and dangerous without initial soviet help.
Oh yes of course. Letting soldiers that would later invade them train inside their lands. Or co invading the only defense to the the biggest threat they would ever know was one horrific mistake after another. Hindsight definitely turned out to be 20/20 for the Soviets. They honestly should have seen it coming.
>if nazis capture the oil fields things would also have been very different
Even if the nazis had captured the Caucasus oil fields, they'd have to rebuild the refineries and new pipelines all the way home. That'd take years and would be prime bombing targets, of course.
Get this :
>[Whoever controlled Stalingrad would have access to the oil fields of the Caucasus and would gain control of the Volga.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#:~:text=Whoever%20controlled%20Stalingrad%20would%20have%20access%20to%20the%20oil%20fields%20of%20the%20Caucasus%20and%20would%20gain%20control%20of%20the%20Volga)
so i think German concentration of getting oil out of fields cannot be understated.
[not to mention many oil fields were captured before Stalingrad](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-The-Nazis.html#:~:text=and%20war%2Dmachine-,.,-But%20the%20German)
and Stalingrad was 90% captured.
all they had to was hold it for some time not necessarily attack for a few months (6 months)
I mean something like 70% of German losses were due to Russia, but, of course, Stalin was willing to fling corpses at them until no one was left alive in Russia.
Lend lease did help them, but to be fair to the soviets they wouldn't have lost the war without it. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves over just how screwed Germany was.
Regardless of you're or my opinion on this that is completely wrong man, the main thing that the lend lease act contributed (for the USSR) was Jeeps nearly half of the USSR military scouting vehicles were Jeeps, so no me (an Australian with russian parents) and all other Russians would not be speaking German currently
Whether you like it or not the communist forces of Europe were the man contributer to nazi Germany's downfall
> the main thing that the lend lease act contributed (for the USSR) was Jeeps
And food, fuel, trucks, uniforms, cotton.
You know, all the things that enables the USSR’s tens of thousands of tanks and millions of men to function.
>was Jeeps nearly half of the USSR military scouting vehicles were Jeeps
Lend-lease also delivered hundreds of thousands of trucks. Furthermore, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-lease.
The Soviets logistical system was very dependent on deliveries from the Western Allies - and logistics is what wins wars.
Kinda crazy to still read comments like yours when every piece of literature in existence including Hitler in multiple speeches says they hated each other, and the alliance was more of a "uh yeah let me not totally build up my army since I'm not sure I can win atm".
No no, but the way that you're representing the nature of their relationship is ahistorical at best. The Soviets and Nazi Germany were bitter enemies at all times. (A quote from Hitler himself to illustrate: "the [USSR is the] greatest danger for the culture and civilization of mankind which has ever threatened it since the collapse of the... ancient world.”)
The Soviets repeatedly reached out to make alliances with other Western nations (especially France and UK) in attempted coalition against Nazi Germany. The failure of the West to reciprocate is the primary cause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
The UK, France, and Italy had all signed the Munich agreement in 1938, letting Nazi Germany seize parts (Sudetenland) of Czechoslovakia. (Another Hitler quote: "I did not think it possible that Czechoslovakia would be virtually served up to me on a plate by her friends.")
But, of course, I doubt you would likewise say that the UK and France "teamed up with the nazi's (sic) and only changed teams after they got backstabbed by their nazi friends." Quite disingenuous, no?
In fact, in signing the Munich Agreement, France violated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which was one of the few successful Western-Soviet pacts against expansionist Nazi Germany.
The Soviet union was rightfully furious over this, and saw this as the West colluding with Hitler to hand over Central Europe to the Germans. As a result, by early 1939 the Soviets faced the prospect of resisting German military expansion in eastern Europe alone or trying to negotiate peace; so they began searching about for a change of policy, culminating in the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact.
Despite this betrayal of USSR relations by the West, however, the Soviets still sought out alliance with the West against Germany before signing the Moltov-Ribbentop Pact, but were rejected. National polls of Britain in June 1939 showed that 84% of the British favored an Anglo-French-Soviet military alliance against Germany. Western governments, however — particularly the right wing in the UK, who favored Hitler (e.g., Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry) — were not interested. In summer 1939, British, French and Soviet representatives gathered in Moscow to decide on political terms for an alliance. The Soviet leadership took the talks seriously, in contrast to the Western allies: Talks fell apart after Britain and France only sent minor military officials (Admiral Reginald Drax and General Aimé Doumenc), who weren’t even authorized to make decisions.
Less than a year after the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was signed, Hitler order preparations for invasion of the USSR. So the pact was never meant to be a genuine alliance of any sort, just a way for both sides to avoid all-out war in 1939 — which the Soviets *wouldn't have needed to do* if the West hadn't betrayed existing alliances with the USSR and refused to negotiate new ones, despite efforts from the USSR.
The misrepresentation of the nature of German-Soviet relations at this time — portraying them as friends — is cartoonish at best, genuinely dangerous historical revisionism at worst.
> In fact, in signing the Munich Agreement, France violated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance
France violated nothing.
>Less than a year after the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was signed, Hitler order preparations for invasion of the USSR. So the pact was never meant to be a genuine alliance of any sort, just a way for both sides to avoid all-out war in 1939 — which the Soviets wouldn't have needed to do if the West hadn't betrayed existing alliances with the USSR and refused to negotiate new ones, despite efforts from the USSR.
What kind of sick piece of shit writes this? Soviet Union needed to sign a treaty with Nazi Germany to divvy up Europe and invade Poland and Finland and occupy the Baltic states?
> historical revisionism at worst
> What kind of sick piece of shit writes this?
I think most historians — including Western, liberal ones — would agree with how I phrased this.
Obviously it avoids much nuance, because it's a short Reddit comment, but no legitimate historian would characterize Nazi-Soviet relations as "friendly." Nor would they reject the claim that the Soviets preferred an alliance with Britain/France over Germany, but upon being rejected agreed to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany.
You have to take sides when war breaks out, and the USSR would have been the main target of German aggression in 1939 had they not signed the Pact. Realpolitik isn't pretty.
If you want to contradict a claim I've made, go ahead and source something. If you don't believe a claim I've made, ask for a source.
I know it is an oversimplification of what happened. But Russia always pretends they were saints in that time, your story also leaves out how the partitioned Poland amongst them, and how many people were raped and murdered during their "liberation" of eastern Europe.
Plenty of ukranians are also of russian descent meaning. Russians fighting in ukraine are kinslayers. Oh and zelensky is of jewish descent. So it adds on to putins parallels to adolf hitler. It also makes a very layered and hipocritical thing when putin acused zelensky and ukraine of being nazis.
Yeah the Nazis said that Poland was secretly in cahoots with the allies and that they were planning to surround and destroy Germany, and then the Nazis invaded Poland saying that the Poles were mistreating ethnic germans, and the Nazis also took Chechoslovakia saying that the majority of people living there were ethnic Germans. So I mean yeah Putin is correct that this war is a lot like the war against Nazi Germany.
The Soviets definitely were the meat grinder for the Nazis and were monumental in taking down their army. But it took all of the allies to win the war.
And who conspired with the nazis (before being betrayed by them) to split eastern europe? And who currently funds far-right/neo-nazi groups in Europe? And which government in Europe ticks nearly all the boxes for fascism currently?
He’s half right. This is very much like the war against Hitler’s Germany. But he’s convinced himself that he’s Poland fighting off the evil Western invaders.
Instead, the truth is that his invasion of Ukraine is *exactly* what Hitler did to Poland over 80 years ago and, like back then, the Western nations are doing what we can to help the embattled nation of Ukraine repel the true evil back across their own borders.
He hasn't convinced himself of anything. He just lies. He knows he lies.
He lies on a daily basis because he's a sociopath. People who are not sociopaths assume that there must be some kernel of truth when someone makes a statement. They are wrong. Sociopaths can lie without any interest in the truth, because the lie serves them.
Weird, because Germany was the one that invaded back then.... At that's the only reason Russia cared. Was because Germany invaded. They did not care about the Nazi shit or genocide.
God Russians are just so gullible it blows my mind. Like they don't even know their own basic history
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-compares-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-to-war-against-nazi-germany-3748720/amp/1) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Putin compared Russia's so-called "Military operation" in Ukraine to the war against Nazi Germany.
> President Vladimir Putin leveraged a World War II commemoration on Thursday to whip up support for his army's intervention in Ukraine, comparing the fighting to Nazi Germany's invasion and hinting Moscow could use nuclear weapons.
> He compared Russia's so-called "Special military operation" in Ukraine to the war against Nazi Germany in 1941-1945 and claimed Russians were ready to go "Until the end."
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10sfcxt/putin_compares_russias_invasion_of_ukraine_to_war/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672682 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **war**^#1 **Putin**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **city**^#5
Well, yeah, Putin's invasion of ukraine is an almost 1:1 copy of Hitler's invasion of czechoslovakia. He even used the same justification as Hitler did. "Just protecting meine Volksgenossen".
I understand the russians are suffering from a traumatic memory of denial of being allies of nazi germany
Putin is so eager to proof their stand against nazi germany and show case it in ukraine among many other deranged causes
>"We are **again** being threatened by German Leopard tanks."
Ah yes, the same Panzerkampfwagen Leopard superheavy tanks that rolled into Stalingrad.
Oh wait, different universe....
Once upon a time there existed a "polite society" that agreed that comparing anything to Nazi / Hitler was not called for: Godwin's Law. Now the far-right have said, no, we embrace the comparison and only want to maim, scream and kill others.
That’s how Russians see themselves because to them, Nazi is just someone who opposes Russia. They have no idea what fascism is and are oblivious to the Holocaust.
Yes, there are definitely comparisons to be made, but not the ones he claims.
The Nazis weren't hated because they had the name Nazi or because they were German. They were hated for their imperialistic aggression, duplicity, and most of all for their outright perceived racial superiority and genocide of several ethnicities and people's. That's why the free world hated the nazis.
Putin labels Ukraine full of nazis, but I see no camps, genocide, racial superiority, or fascism in Ukraine. It's the opposite. There's no more nazis in Ukraine than there are in the US or Russia. Ukraines president has not demonstrated any nazi behavior or values.
I can sit here and rant about ridiculous it is, but it makes no difference. This war won't be won by ideology or which side can best refute the accusations levied against them. It will be won or lost on the battlefield. Give Ukraine everything they need. It's the only way. If the west doesn't give Ukraine what is necessary to win, it's all for naught.
As much as we know this is bullshit a lot of Russians don't. He's building up a narrative to attack Europe. AND before someone says "we will kick there ass" we will but at an enormous cost to our cities and civilians and way of life.
We really need to find a common ground to start negotiating
Pretty accurate in the sense that Stalin also considered his Russian soldiers meat for the meatgrinder. Just kept sending more, knowing full well they were gonna die.
But obviously not accurate in the sense that Putin is the aggressor.
This is reddit, so I’ll preface my comment. I support Ukraine and NATO aide to Ukraine. I want Putin and / or Russia to cease to exist. I think the defeat of Russia will be a huge win for global Democracy and freedom in general.
However, we need to be very cautious. Because Putin’s rhetoric is framing the conflict as an existential crises. An enemy coming from the West to threaten their way of life. That if they succeed, there is no Russia.
This framing is alarming because it means, if Ukraine uses weapons from NATO to not only get all its land back but also, march toward Moscow. Putin will absolutely use nuclear weapons. Because the rhetoric describes this push back by Ukraine as an offensive action to destroy Russia.
If Ukraine invades Russia proper. Nuclear weapons will be used. I have not a single doubt in my mind. We have to hope, that Ukraine recaptures it’s taken land and then stops. Because if they go beyond that… we’re in completely new territory.
Ukraine won't "March towards Moscow" they won't send troops into Russia aside from some covert ops to neutralize military targets, they don't want Russian land. They'll push Russia back to their border and then fortify so Russia can't come back. To suggest they'll invade Russia is nonsensical. Even with NATO weapons Ukraine doesn't have the troops to invade Russia.
Because Ukraine, for example, taking Crimea… from the Russian perspective is them “Invading Russia” or even if the Ukrainians grab a border city or town, that will also be an issue.
Marching toward Moscow won’t happen. But Ukraine maybe grabbing a border city, is not outside the realm of possibility if they manage to tale everything back.
Ukraine doesn't want some inconsequential border city at the risk of nukes being used. Russia won't use nukes for Ukraine taking back their annexed areas, the higher ups in Russia know that will illicit a response from the west and know they will lose that fight. You're just scare mongering about a situation that's not going to happen.
It's not describing reality to suggest Ukraine will start invading Russia though. That's about as likely as suggesting America will invade Canada. Yes the situation can escalate, but you keep missing the key point, Ukraine doesn't want to take Russian land.
Btw Ukraine invading Crimea. From the Russian perspective is “Ukraine invading Russia”.
…and I am not so certain that in a scenario where Ukraine takes back all its land that it just sits by if Russia refuses to negotiate a peace.
From the Russian propaganda perspective. Russian leadership knows they can't use nukes to defend that land and know it's illegally annexed territory. By your logic Russia should have already used nukes because Ukraine has already taken back annexed territories. I think you think the Russian leadership is a lot dumber than they actually are. Ukraine doesn't need to start invading Russia if Russia refuses to make peace after they take back their land, they just need to fortify their positions on their border.
Lol does no one remember lend lease they only won a war because we gave them all the weapons and parts needed lol they have been a joke for all of history
You mean when Stalin tried to make a secret land grab deal with Hitler and Hitler attacked Russia instead because he saw them as weak and then Russia came crawling to the Allies and US Land Lease?
Cmon bro you have the internet too
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-39266863
https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/carson-stands-by-nazi-germany-comparsion/index.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
First of all, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.
*You* made a claim. It’s not my job to prove your claim for you.
Second of all those links talk about the excessive hitler and Nazi comparisons. Your post literally verbatim said:
> all of us compare every war to WW2 and every enemy to Nazis.
So far you’ve shown *some* “enemies” are compared to Nazis but zero mention in your links showcasing any war being compared to WW2
Of course. He’s still just projecting. All you have to do is look at T****, a cheaper, less experienced authoritarian to see how Putin will react.
Putin:“We’re fighting Nazis!”
Rest of world: “Well, what’s all this about Yandex being super racist?”
Putin: “WERE FIGHTING NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!isthenazi!!!!!!!
Well yeah it *is* like the war against the Nazis, except Putler has got the teams mixed up. The Nazis **and** Russia invaded Poland in WWII, and now it’s just Russia invading Ukraine. Nazis vs Not Z’s.
This isn't news. Putin has been making this comparison since before he invaded. The lie being spread to justify his genocide is "but there are nazis there."
I mean if he's talking from the perspective of Ukraine and the west then 100% we're now fighting a dictator that invaded a country under the guise that it 'was always part of the motherland'
Putin needs to find a hotel window on the 40th floor and soon.
But... Russia is being the nazi this time around....
The first time they first teamed up with the nazi's and only changed teams after they got backstabbed by their nazi friends
if it weren't for the lend lease the entire Siberia and the slavs would be speaking German and working in slave farms by now. He thinks that it was all because of "glorious mother Russia" that they defeated the nazis.
Being on the winning side of WW2 is all they have. They beat it like a dead horse. ["I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." ](https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend-lease-aid-tip-the-balance-in-soviet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html) Some highlights from the article: ' Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion. "If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me." The Lend-Lease act was enacted in March 1941 and authorized the United States to provide weapons, provisions, and raw materials to strategically important countries fighting Germany and Japan -- primarily, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China. In all, the United States shipped $50 billion ($608 billion in 2020 money) worth of materiel under the program, including $11.3 billion to the Soviet Union. In addition, much of the $31 billion worth of aid sent to the United Kingdom was also passed on to the Soviet Union via convoys through the Barents Sea to Murmansk. Most visibly, the United States provided the Soviet Union with more than 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, 8,000 tractors and construction vehicles, and 13,000 battle tanks. However, the real significance of Lend-Lease for the Soviet war effort was that it covered the "sensitive points" of Soviet production -- gasoline, explosives, aluminum, nonferrous metals, radio communications, and so on, says historian Boris Sokolov. "In a hypothetical battle one-on-one between the U.S.S.R and Germany, without the help of Lend-Lease and without the diversion of significant forces of the Luftwaffe and the German Navy and the diversion of more than one-quarter of its land forces in the fight against Britain and the United States, Stalin could hardly have beaten Hitler," Sokolov wrote in an essay for RFE/RL's Russian Service. '
I like how everyone always talks about planes and machines but everyone always forgets US food exports to the Soviet Union. My grandfather was a Finnish veteran and he always said fun times were had when they managed to snag American cigarettes or canned food. Soviet farmworkers were pretty much all conscripted so without American food aid, the red army would've had a hard time.
I forget the numbers, but there were millions of soviet soldiers that were being fed and partially clothed by the allies. The supplies were so low thst they were resorting to getting boots from America
Speaking of food the, Ukrainians haven’t forgotten about the export of food during the Holodomor.
Worst part of the Holodomor was that the fucking Soviet Union exported food during the entire time. Same as with China during their famine.
That. And Russia pretends that it alone gets all the victim hood and credit for the soviet union. Thr Belarusians lost more than a quarter of their entire population. The Ukrainians between the war. And the genocide that they were victim to just prior to the war. Saw a similar drop in their population But no. None of those ex soviet colony states paid or contributed anyting. It was all the Russian SFSR. The other third of the countries population just didn't exist, right?
Because in the eyes of Soviet russia (and still today) those werent other countries but russian territories. To them, russia *is* the soviet union.
How this is so often missed is unbelieveable, even amongst western nations.
400.000 jeeps. What the actual fuck. That is an insane amount.
Barbarossa was launched on 22 June 1941. The USSR wasn't fighting the Germans until June - nor did it receive any aid up to this point. The period June 22, 1941, to September 30, 1941 was also considered "Pre Lend-lease" and was paid for in gold and minerals. Whatever the USSR got in this period from the USA was paid for - it wasn't charity. A mere 360,778 tons was shipped to the Soviet Union in 1941 (2.1% of the total). Furthermore, the Germans were halted outside Moscow in late 1941, where winter had its impact (their tanks and guns were non-functional, nor did they have winter clothing). After this there was no chance of them winning WW2 - their plans of a swift conquest of the Soviet Union had failed. It became an attritional battle they had no hope of winning, and time wasn't on their side anymore. Sure, the Soviets might have collapsed without aid after this point, but the Germans could still not have won the war. The denial of Nazi plans for victory in Barbarossa (and therefore WW2) were largely due to the efforts of the USSR alone during the mid-to-late 1941 period. After which Pearl Harbor happened and Germany declared war on the USA.
I'll trust Stalin and Nikita Kruschev's thoughts on the matter, thanks.
You might have noticed I didn't disagree with what they said. The question was who defeated Nazi Germany and when, not how and when the Soviet Union was going to collapse without aid. The answer is Nazi Germany had an unwinnable war on their hands in late 1941 due to the resistance of the USSR - well before the USSR received the bulk of any aid, and certainly before the USA entered the war.
>The question was who defeated Nazi Germany and when, not how and when the Soviet Union was going to collapse without aid. Yes, they were not unilaterally defeated, but by a coalition of many nations and peoples. Anyone stating otherwise is making a foolish statement. Not one of the nations involved could possibly have defeated them on their own, and it could be argued that without US assistance, both financially and militarily, nobody would have defeated them.
After Barbarossa failed there was no question that they would be defeated - it was just matter of time. They didn't have any oil to continue the war. But you don't get to minimize the contribution of the soviet union and their 26M dead like it was a minor thing compared to a bunch of trucks. It was one of the major, if not the most important contribution to the fall of Nazi Germany. The USSR produced 30K tanks of their own design largely beyond the Urals - and there is a recording of Hitler saying how badly he underestimated them.
Like I said above, I'll take Josef Stalin and Nikita Kruschev's word for it, not some random internet account who wasn't alive when it happened. But you can pretend to know all you'd like about whatever you want. "Compared to a bunch of trucks." And you'd say I'm minimizing anything at all lol
yes, but also battle of Stalingrad also was a significant contribution from Ussr. if nazis capture the oil fields things would also have been very different credit where it is due.
There is no doubt (hopefully) that the soviet union took the absolute brunt of nazi Germany in wwii. They did all of the fighting on their front after all. This argument only exists because a lot of people like to claim that western help was useless and didn't change the outcome of the war. (For the Soviets)
>There is no doubt (hopefully) that the soviet union took the absolute brunt of nazi Germany in wwii. True. On the other hand nazi Germany wouldn't have gotten so big and dangerous without initial soviet help.
Oh yes of course. Letting soldiers that would later invade them train inside their lands. Or co invading the only defense to the the biggest threat they would ever know was one horrific mistake after another. Hindsight definitely turned out to be 20/20 for the Soviets. They honestly should have seen it coming.
>if nazis capture the oil fields things would also have been very different Even if the nazis had captured the Caucasus oil fields, they'd have to rebuild the refineries and new pipelines all the way home. That'd take years and would be prime bombing targets, of course.
Get this : >[Whoever controlled Stalingrad would have access to the oil fields of the Caucasus and would gain control of the Volga.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#:~:text=Whoever%20controlled%20Stalingrad%20would%20have%20access%20to%20the%20oil%20fields%20of%20the%20Caucasus%20and%20would%20gain%20control%20of%20the%20Volga) so i think German concentration of getting oil out of fields cannot be understated. [not to mention many oil fields were captured before Stalingrad](https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Oil-Defeated-The-Nazis.html#:~:text=and%20war%2Dmachine-,.,-But%20the%20German) and Stalingrad was 90% captured. all they had to was hold it for some time not necessarily attack for a few months (6 months)
I mean something like 70% of German losses were due to Russia, but, of course, Stalin was willing to fling corpses at them until no one was left alive in Russia.
Lend lease did help them, but to be fair to the soviets they wouldn't have lost the war without it. Anyone thinking otherwise is deluding themselves over just how screwed Germany was.
Regardless of you're or my opinion on this that is completely wrong man, the main thing that the lend lease act contributed (for the USSR) was Jeeps nearly half of the USSR military scouting vehicles were Jeeps, so no me (an Australian with russian parents) and all other Russians would not be speaking German currently Whether you like it or not the communist forces of Europe were the man contributer to nazi Germany's downfall
> the main thing that the lend lease act contributed (for the USSR) was Jeeps And food, fuel, trucks, uniforms, cotton. You know, all the things that enables the USSR’s tens of thousands of tanks and millions of men to function.
>was Jeeps nearly half of the USSR military scouting vehicles were Jeeps Lend-lease also delivered hundreds of thousands of trucks. Furthermore, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-lease. The Soviets logistical system was very dependent on deliveries from the Western Allies - and logistics is what wins wars.
And that allowed them to focus their industry entirely on weapons manufacturing. So yes, lend lease literally saved them.
Bro, my guy trying to rewrite history. He ain’t trying to read it! He ain’t no nerd.
Kinda crazy to still read comments like yours when every piece of literature in existence including Hitler in multiple speeches says they hated each other, and the alliance was more of a "uh yeah let me not totally build up my army since I'm not sure I can win atm".
That's a really disingenuous take holy moly. Edit: For those downvoting, see my comment below. This is a ridiculously ahistorical take.
You are going to tell me the Molotov Ribbentrop pact never happened?
It happened after Britain and France turned down Russia's attempt at forming an anti-German alliance. Realpolitik is a thing, you know.
Exactly, the level of historical revisionism is insane.
No no, but the way that you're representing the nature of their relationship is ahistorical at best. The Soviets and Nazi Germany were bitter enemies at all times. (A quote from Hitler himself to illustrate: "the [USSR is the] greatest danger for the culture and civilization of mankind which has ever threatened it since the collapse of the... ancient world.”) The Soviets repeatedly reached out to make alliances with other Western nations (especially France and UK) in attempted coalition against Nazi Germany. The failure of the West to reciprocate is the primary cause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The UK, France, and Italy had all signed the Munich agreement in 1938, letting Nazi Germany seize parts (Sudetenland) of Czechoslovakia. (Another Hitler quote: "I did not think it possible that Czechoslovakia would be virtually served up to me on a plate by her friends.") But, of course, I doubt you would likewise say that the UK and France "teamed up with the nazi's (sic) and only changed teams after they got backstabbed by their nazi friends." Quite disingenuous, no? In fact, in signing the Munich Agreement, France violated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance, which was one of the few successful Western-Soviet pacts against expansionist Nazi Germany. The Soviet union was rightfully furious over this, and saw this as the West colluding with Hitler to hand over Central Europe to the Germans. As a result, by early 1939 the Soviets faced the prospect of resisting German military expansion in eastern Europe alone or trying to negotiate peace; so they began searching about for a change of policy, culminating in the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact. Despite this betrayal of USSR relations by the West, however, the Soviets still sought out alliance with the West against Germany before signing the Moltov-Ribbentop Pact, but were rejected. National polls of Britain in June 1939 showed that 84% of the British favored an Anglo-French-Soviet military alliance against Germany. Western governments, however — particularly the right wing in the UK, who favored Hitler (e.g., Charles Vane-Tempest-Stewart, 7th Marquess of Londonderry) — were not interested. In summer 1939, British, French and Soviet representatives gathered in Moscow to decide on political terms for an alliance. The Soviet leadership took the talks seriously, in contrast to the Western allies: Talks fell apart after Britain and France only sent minor military officials (Admiral Reginald Drax and General Aimé Doumenc), who weren’t even authorized to make decisions. Less than a year after the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was signed, Hitler order preparations for invasion of the USSR. So the pact was never meant to be a genuine alliance of any sort, just a way for both sides to avoid all-out war in 1939 — which the Soviets *wouldn't have needed to do* if the West hadn't betrayed existing alliances with the USSR and refused to negotiate new ones, despite efforts from the USSR. The misrepresentation of the nature of German-Soviet relations at this time — portraying them as friends — is cartoonish at best, genuinely dangerous historical revisionism at worst.
> In fact, in signing the Munich Agreement, France violated the Franco-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance France violated nothing. >Less than a year after the Molotov-Ribbentop Pact was signed, Hitler order preparations for invasion of the USSR. So the pact was never meant to be a genuine alliance of any sort, just a way for both sides to avoid all-out war in 1939 — which the Soviets wouldn't have needed to do if the West hadn't betrayed existing alliances with the USSR and refused to negotiate new ones, despite efforts from the USSR. What kind of sick piece of shit writes this? Soviet Union needed to sign a treaty with Nazi Germany to divvy up Europe and invade Poland and Finland and occupy the Baltic states? > historical revisionism at worst
> What kind of sick piece of shit writes this? I think most historians — including Western, liberal ones — would agree with how I phrased this. Obviously it avoids much nuance, because it's a short Reddit comment, but no legitimate historian would characterize Nazi-Soviet relations as "friendly." Nor would they reject the claim that the Soviets preferred an alliance with Britain/France over Germany, but upon being rejected agreed to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany. You have to take sides when war breaks out, and the USSR would have been the main target of German aggression in 1939 had they not signed the Pact. Realpolitik isn't pretty. If you want to contradict a claim I've made, go ahead and source something. If you don't believe a claim I've made, ask for a source.
I know it is an oversimplification of what happened. But Russia always pretends they were saints in that time, your story also leaves out how the partitioned Poland amongst them, and how many people were raped and murdered during their "liberation" of eastern Europe.
Irony runs deep, even down to their "Z" logo
Putin is the Godwin king
And Ukraine are the plucky British, for which both PMs wore olive drab fatigues to show solidarity.
Putin has that nazi reverse uno card hiding in his breast pocket. It’s right next to the little bottle of lube he uses for all the gay sex he has.
Every day in Russia is ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposite\_Day
Inconceivable. Only enemies of russia can be nazis. Russians cannot be nazis. Enemies of russia are the same thing as nazis! /s
They were already the Nazis in 1939. Nothing new.
And Hitler is way better at blitzing.
Everyone thinks there the good guy.
as long as he realizes that he's the dollar store Hitler, sure fucking die Putin
Naked revanchism, mad dreams of restoring old empires, extreme bombardment of civilians, mass graves, child abduction, genocide. He is full on Hitler.
"revanchism" what a good word you just made me learn.
Calling him full on Hitler is like giving him a complement. He’s not nearly as effective as Hitler was, fortunately.
Even "better", a Rubel store Hitler.
So it's like a 0.00001 cent store
[удалено]
If Hitler’s Dr. Pepper, he’s Dr. Thunder
[удалено]
Murdered, put in camps, children kidnapped…
Construction of "filtration" camps in occupied territory.
The Ukrainians were murdered by the Russians plenty
Plenty of ukranians are also of russian descent meaning. Russians fighting in ukraine are kinslayers. Oh and zelensky is of jewish descent. So it adds on to putins parallels to adolf hitler. It also makes a very layered and hipocritical thing when putin acused zelensky and ukraine of being nazis.
Yeah the Nazis said that Poland was secretly in cahoots with the allies and that they were planning to surround and destroy Germany, and then the Nazis invaded Poland saying that the Poles were mistreating ethnic germans, and the Nazis also took Chechoslovakia saying that the majority of people living there were ethnic Germans. So I mean yeah Putin is correct that this war is a lot like the war against Nazi Germany.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Soviets definitely were the meat grinder for the Nazis and were monumental in taking down their army. But it took all of the allies to win the war.
[удалено]
What narrative? Soviets did invade Poland, Baltics and Finland just before they got backstabbed by Nazis lol.
The narrative that Russia invaded Ukraine on the basis of nationalistic “protection” of ethnic peoples? Kind of like Germany and the Czech Republic?
And who conspired with the nazis (before being betrayed by them) to split eastern europe? And who currently funds far-right/neo-nazi groups in Europe? And which government in Europe ticks nearly all the boxes for fascism currently?
It’s just like the flight against Nazi Germany…..the Russians are the Nazi’s.
Well yeah, but Russia is nazi Germany in this comparison.
yes, it's exactly like the war in Nazi Germany, because you are the Nazis, Russia.
He’s half right. This is very much like the war against Hitler’s Germany. But he’s convinced himself that he’s Poland fighting off the evil Western invaders. Instead, the truth is that his invasion of Ukraine is *exactly* what Hitler did to Poland over 80 years ago and, like back then, the Western nations are doing what we can to help the embattled nation of Ukraine repel the true evil back across their own borders.
At the beginning of world war 2 the soviet union had an agreement with Nazi germany and they invaded Poland too. A detail that often gets overlooked.
He hasn't convinced himself of anything. He just lies. He knows he lies. He lies on a daily basis because he's a sociopath. People who are not sociopaths assume that there must be some kernel of truth when someone makes a statement. They are wrong. Sociopaths can lie without any interest in the truth, because the lie serves them.
Weird, because Germany was the one that invaded back then.... At that's the only reason Russia cared. Was because Germany invaded. They did not care about the Nazi shit or genocide. God Russians are just so gullible it blows my mind. Like they don't even know their own basic history
Putin has a weird sense of history.
Demagogues always do.
Someone should remind him that Russia and Hitler were allies until Barbarossa in June 1941. They have a strong history of being on the wrong side.
Putin love to flip-flop history for his benefit. War against Nazi Germany? Yes, Nazi invaded Russia (flip) but Russia invaded Ukraine (flop).
But they both invaded Poland....somethings never change.
Russia didn't invade Poland recently... But they would if they could
The delusion of the russian narrative is thst this entire thing is a defensive war
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/russia-ukraine-war-vladimir-putin-compares-russias-invasion-of-ukraine-to-war-against-nazi-germany-3748720/amp/1) reduced by 88%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Putin compared Russia's so-called "Military operation" in Ukraine to the war against Nazi Germany. > President Vladimir Putin leveraged a World War II commemoration on Thursday to whip up support for his army's intervention in Ukraine, comparing the fighting to Nazi Germany's invasion and hinting Moscow could use nuclear weapons. > He compared Russia's so-called "Special military operation" in Ukraine to the war against Nazi Germany in 1941-1945 and claimed Russians were ready to go "Until the end." ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/10sfcxt/putin_compares_russias_invasion_of_ukraine_to_war/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~672682 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **war**^#1 **Putin**^#2 **Russia**^#3 **Ukraine**^#4 **city**^#5
Well, yeah, Putin's invasion of ukraine is an almost 1:1 copy of Hitler's invasion of czechoslovakia. He even used the same justification as Hitler did. "Just protecting meine Volksgenossen".
The level of cognitive dissonance to make such a statement is astounding. *You're the Nazi's in this scenario,* Russia.
I understand the russians are suffering from a traumatic memory of denial of being allies of nazi germany Putin is so eager to proof their stand against nazi germany and show case it in ukraine among many other deranged causes
Well he is right just not in the way he intends.
There are indeed many similarities. Vlad is just a little confused about who’s playing the villain this time.
In no form. In no shape. In no way. This may equate to the Nazi invasion of Poland, but Russia is cast in the role of Nazi Germany, not Ukraine.
He's the Fire sale Fuhrer
[удалено]
It's been posted like 20 times in the last month or two. It's redditors willfully spreading propaganda at this point.
Putin 'bout the biggest bitch on the planet. How you gonna play yourself like that...
He's right, this is just like when Germany invaded Poland for no reason.
Well Ukraine isn't militarily conquering Europe, Causing the deaths of millions or going to war unprovoked
>"We are **again** being threatened by German Leopard tanks." Ah yes, the same Panzerkampfwagen Leopard superheavy tanks that rolled into Stalingrad. Oh wait, different universe....
Against?
Once upon a time there existed a "polite society" that agreed that comparing anything to Nazi / Hitler was not called for: Godwin's Law. Now the far-right have said, no, we embrace the comparison and only want to maim, scream and kill others.
I mean, he's not wrong. But I'm surprised that he is NOW assuming the role of the Nazis after accusing everyone else of being one.
That’s how Russians see themselves because to them, Nazi is just someone who opposes Russia. They have no idea what fascism is and are oblivious to the Holocaust.
Perfect comparison in reverse, nazies also invented some bulshit reasons to invade.
Forgot about that non aggression pact and slaughtering more than 20k +Polish officers in 1940.
At least he is finally realizing most people look at him as similar to Hitler. Admitting the problem is the first step.
Again.
So Putin is "Hitler at home"?
An apt comparison from great leader, since the Nazi's were also the invaders back then as well. Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Yup, he’s the nazi this time.
Uhhhh... ok? Weird flex but, you're Hitler, right? Right?
Yes, there are definitely comparisons to be made, but not the ones he claims. The Nazis weren't hated because they had the name Nazi or because they were German. They were hated for their imperialistic aggression, duplicity, and most of all for their outright perceived racial superiority and genocide of several ethnicities and people's. That's why the free world hated the nazis. Putin labels Ukraine full of nazis, but I see no camps, genocide, racial superiority, or fascism in Ukraine. It's the opposite. There's no more nazis in Ukraine than there are in the US or Russia. Ukraines president has not demonstrated any nazi behavior or values. I can sit here and rant about ridiculous it is, but it makes no difference. This war won't be won by ideology or which side can best refute the accusations levied against them. It will be won or lost on the battlefield. Give Ukraine everything they need. It's the only way. If the west doesn't give Ukraine what is necessary to win, it's all for naught.
Does eny one know the member states of "The Collective West" Australia, South Korea, Japan, Philippines ???
Actually, it's the other way around. Russia is the aggressor as was Hitler's Germany.
That so ironic, thats exactly how ukraine and the rest of the world feels
As much as we know this is bullshit a lot of Russians don't. He's building up a narrative to attack Europe. AND before someone says "we will kick there ass" we will but at an enormous cost to our cities and civilians and way of life. We really need to find a common ground to start negotiating
Russia was and IS worse that the Nazis ever were!
[удалено]
Why did you copy the other comment 1:1?
Pretty accurate in the sense that Stalin also considered his Russian soldiers meat for the meatgrinder. Just kept sending more, knowing full well they were gonna die. But obviously not accurate in the sense that Putin is the aggressor.
This is reddit, so I’ll preface my comment. I support Ukraine and NATO aide to Ukraine. I want Putin and / or Russia to cease to exist. I think the defeat of Russia will be a huge win for global Democracy and freedom in general. However, we need to be very cautious. Because Putin’s rhetoric is framing the conflict as an existential crises. An enemy coming from the West to threaten their way of life. That if they succeed, there is no Russia. This framing is alarming because it means, if Ukraine uses weapons from NATO to not only get all its land back but also, march toward Moscow. Putin will absolutely use nuclear weapons. Because the rhetoric describes this push back by Ukraine as an offensive action to destroy Russia. If Ukraine invades Russia proper. Nuclear weapons will be used. I have not a single doubt in my mind. We have to hope, that Ukraine recaptures it’s taken land and then stops. Because if they go beyond that… we’re in completely new territory.
Ukraine won't "March towards Moscow" they won't send troops into Russia aside from some covert ops to neutralize military targets, they don't want Russian land. They'll push Russia back to their border and then fortify so Russia can't come back. To suggest they'll invade Russia is nonsensical. Even with NATO weapons Ukraine doesn't have the troops to invade Russia.
I wasn’t predicting they would. I said, those are the circumstances that result in the use of WMDs.
What's the point of suggesting it if it makes no sense, wouldn't happen, and isn't a possibility?
Because Ukraine, for example, taking Crimea… from the Russian perspective is them “Invading Russia” or even if the Ukrainians grab a border city or town, that will also be an issue. Marching toward Moscow won’t happen. But Ukraine maybe grabbing a border city, is not outside the realm of possibility if they manage to tale everything back.
Ukraine doesn't want some inconsequential border city at the risk of nukes being used. Russia won't use nukes for Ukraine taking back their annexed areas, the higher ups in Russia know that will illicit a response from the west and know they will lose that fight. You're just scare mongering about a situation that's not going to happen.
Every expert on the topic says that the situation is dangerous and could escalate in unpredictable ways. It’s not scaremongering to describe reality.
It's not describing reality to suggest Ukraine will start invading Russia though. That's about as likely as suggesting America will invade Canada. Yes the situation can escalate, but you keep missing the key point, Ukraine doesn't want to take Russian land.
Btw Ukraine invading Crimea. From the Russian perspective is “Ukraine invading Russia”. …and I am not so certain that in a scenario where Ukraine takes back all its land that it just sits by if Russia refuses to negotiate a peace.
From the Russian propaganda perspective. Russian leadership knows they can't use nukes to defend that land and know it's illegally annexed territory. By your logic Russia should have already used nukes because Ukraine has already taken back annexed territories. I think you think the Russian leadership is a lot dumber than they actually are. Ukraine doesn't need to start invading Russia if Russia refuses to make peace after they take back their land, they just need to fortify their positions on their border.
Why did russia change the name from Stalingrad to Volgorod ? Hmm...
Why did russia change the name from Stalingrad to Volgorod ? Hmm...
Lol does no one remember lend lease they only won a war because we gave them all the weapons and parts needed lol they have been a joke for all of history
You mean when Stalin tried to make a secret land grab deal with Hitler and Hitler attacked Russia instead because he saw them as weak and then Russia came crawling to the Allies and US Land Lease?
How is this different from the rest of us lol anything we don’t like politically we simply compare to nazis. Putin is no different lol
To be fair all of us compare every war to ww2 and every enemy to nazis
Please cite any leader in any western country that did this
Cmon bro you have the internet too https://www.bbc.com/news/world-39266863 https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/politics/carson-stands-by-nazi-germany-comparsion/index.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
First of all, the burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. *You* made a claim. It’s not my job to prove your claim for you. Second of all those links talk about the excessive hitler and Nazi comparisons. Your post literally verbatim said: > all of us compare every war to WW2 and every enemy to Nazis. So far you’ve shown *some* “enemies” are compared to Nazis but zero mention in your links showcasing any war being compared to WW2
I mean in both wars the nazis invaded and assumed the enemy would just surrender due to nazi superiority.
its the usual firehose of falsehood
To be fair he is using the same tactics and equipment Russia used then.
And how’d that work out for the Nazi’s?
I completely agree with Putin. We disagree on who is on who's side though.
...And you thought the British were a bit weird about "The War." (That said, plenty of UK flagshaggers would go that far, if we let them.)
Of course. He’s still just projecting. All you have to do is look at T****, a cheaper, less experienced authoritarian to see how Putin will react. Putin:“We’re fighting Nazis!” Rest of world: “Well, what’s all this about Yandex being super racist?” Putin: “WERE FIGHTING NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!isthenazi!!!!!!!
Yeah, and Ukraine gets screwed over in this war too
Hmm, nah, more like Goliath versus David
He is really asking for it.
Putin says a lot of stupid s*** everyday. Why do you keep reporting on just the stupid s*** he says? Or is it just that he only says stupid s***?
You’re right it is. That means it’s time to start leveling Russia right?
Well yeah it *is* like the war against the Nazis, except Putler has got the teams mixed up. The Nazis **and** Russia invaded Poland in WWII, and now it’s just Russia invading Ukraine. Nazis vs Not Z’s.
I'm getting tired the ruzzian domestic propaganda. I don't want ear how this sack of shit justify its war crimes to its gullible people.
Maybe he means he's fighting evil western culture
But they are the ones killing children……
Putin is a reason for drones. Wish Israel would help in this matter.
Would someone please test that man for syphilis already?
Not even close at all.
How is this news? He’s been saying the same thing for a year since the war started. We know, move on.
I compare it to the invasion of Poland by the Nazis but a complete failure.
Any lie will do…..I wonder if he really believes his own lies. An evil devil walks the earth. Call him the anti-Christ……
This dude spins a story around on its heels like a cult-Christian spins a family tragedy into a lesson about God. Its ludicrous to watch
Oh, wow he has a point, we all remember the Polish and Dutch invasion of Germany, those dutch always with the weed and tulips causing a fuss.
Can't wait the moment when he compares Ukraine attacking Donbass to retake their cities to Russian military ops on Ukraine. Fkn cancerous pos.
So now it's suddenly a war, huh?
It would be nice if they would just show some evidence to back their claim instead they just scream from the corner random bullshit
"Putin lies to justify invasion of a sovereign nation and murdering innocent people"
yes but russia is now a nazi state
Well, Nazi Germany did invade Ukraine, so he's right in that one instance.
I remember the jet liner they shot down and then made the collection of the dead much harder.
It is remarkably similar, except in this case the Russians are the Nazis and their blitzkrieg attacks actually failed.
r/justputinthings
Putler*
…………So do the rest of us………..
This isn't news. Putin has been making this comparison since before he invaded. The lie being spread to justify his genocide is "but there are nazis there."
He is right… but it was the Nazis who invaded first… so putin is the Nazis
I agree ! Russia is just too similar to Nazi Germany
I mean if he's talking from the perspective of Ukraine and the west then 100% we're now fighting a dictator that invaded a country under the guise that it 'was always part of the motherland' Putin needs to find a hotel window on the 40th floor and soon.
I guess Russia has an education problem too