LogFAQs > #894021803

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear
Topic List
Page List: 1
TopicWhy do the history books try to demonize Stalin?
chaosbowser
01/14/18 7:04:53 AM
#16:


darkknight109 posted...
streamofthesky posted...
With two quick notes that Britain wouldn't have been able to halt the nazi advance on the western and African fronts w/o the weapons being sent from the U.S. (but supplying arms is several tiers below actually doing the fighting, of course) and that Russia's "heroics" weren't intentional but a "hoist by his own petard" moment where Stalin had allied w/ hitler out of convenience and was betrayed and caught by surprise.
But yeah, U.S. involvement helped end the war sooner, but Russia was already on a course to eventually defeat them and by far took the brunt of the fighting and casualties (pretty sure they were the country w/ the most losses, and by a staggering amount over the others...though again partly their own fault for the purge Stalin did on his military before the war and simply not even having as many weapons as soldiers).

I'm glad the U.S. did enter the war and help end it sooner. But Russia sacrificed and contributed more than any other country, albeit not by choice.

No disagreements here.

It's just a pet peeve of mine when people don't realise the significant contributions of the non-American allies (USSR in particular) and/or overestimate exactly how much impact America had on the war. While certainly far from a non-entity, the US was not the one-country game-winner American historians like to paint it as.


I mean they're not wrong. They were key to a faster victory. Who knows how long the war would have been without America's assistance.
---
I love people.
I hate people.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1