Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
No one in 1941 cared about the Holocaust, which had not even been started anyway (at least, not the gas chambers). What they cared about was preventing Hitler becoming a world power.
Yes, Stalin killed a lot of people. Perhaps his actions led to more deaths than Hitler's, the war excepted. That said, most of his killings took place before World War II. Considering that Hitler was planning on exteriminating all Slavs, was it really bad for them that Stalin won and not Hitler? I'd say that it is very good that Stalin won and not Hitler.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
If the unopposed might of the Wehrmacht failed to do that, what makes you think the Allies could? It was not possible, the populations and army would not stand for it, and it's a stupid plan overall.
That's better than I expected...
No, because I understand politics. I'll support Stalin to beat Hitler.
Okay now that's a shit take. First off, the thing nazis are most famous for, the whole holocaust thing? Inspired by Stalin's Holodomor in early 30s where he starved several million ukrainians to death. The Soviets also had a share in the butchering of people including jews in eastern europe - the holocaust just being the two german camps is a common misunderstanding. Both nations committed acts of butchery across eastern Europe. Stalin then went on to find far more death and psychosis than Hitler ever did.
The only reasonable take on "hitler or stalin" was George Patton's: fuck it, we'll get em both. He would have had th third army rolling over moscow within weeks.
They killed him for saying it.
No one in 1941 cared about the Holocaust, which had not even been started anyway (at least, not the gas chambers). What they cared about was preventing Hitler becoming a world power.
Yes, Stalin killed a lot of people. Perhaps his actions led to more deaths than Hitler's, the war excepted. That said, most of his killings took place before World War II. Considering that Hitler was planning on exteriminating all Slavs, was it really bad for them that Stalin won and not Hitler? I'd say that it is very good that Stalin won and not Hitler.
If the unopposed might of the Wehrmacht failed to do that, what makes you think the Allies could? It was not possible, the populations and army would not stand for it, and it's a stupid plan overall.
You were talking sense up to this point.
You never have.