Hahaha they really have to actively be looking to get offended by anything a communist or simply someone with an accurate understanding of history says. That person didn't even deny that allies contributed, they're just stating the fact that the USSR liberated most of Nazi occupied Europe and defeated fascism. That's not controversial, pick something else to get irrationally angry about.
tfw u build schools, apartments and hospitals that are still standing to this day despite lack of maintenance, have pretty progressive laws for the time, massively improve living standards only for some dumbass on the internet to compare you to the Nazis.
Look, the PRL had a lot of issues (polish comrades know this damn well), but holy fucking shit man you cannot compare it to German-occupied Poland, where there were Ghettos everywhere and fucking concentration camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, etc.).
Just like Parenti said, where were the half-starved masses when socialism fell? Where were the countless political prisoners we were told about?
To add to Parenti's argument why did things like nutrition, poverty, life expectancy, income inequality, etc. get worse after the Soviet Union fell apart?
I do think lend lease was quite important to the Soviet victory (probably inevitable without it but it saved a shit ton of lives with food delivery which is very good and should be acknowledged and lauded) however it was up to the Soviets to effectively use said supplies so it's still not the argumentative coup these NATO brains think it is.
Lend lease was something around 4% of total Soviet war materials used, it only started to arrive in noticeable amounts in 1943, and a lot of arms send were more or less obsolete crap like the M3 Lee tanks or Airacobra fighters. It did have some effects like large number of US trucks freed some Soviet manufacturing to produce something else or when abovementioned obsolete crap was issued to second line troops allowing for more concentration of good equipment, but overall it was FAR from the importance murican propaganda makes you believe it had.
Thanks for bringing up the raw figures, I always think its like 10% but thats still a wild overestimate. That's why I mentioned things like food or the trucks because I do remember reading that those were quite helpful and they benefitted the civilian population as well as the Red Army. American propaganda would have you believing that Sherman tanks with red stars were rolling through Berlin with the amount of "but Lend-Lease!" that they toss about.
It's funny that American propaganda is so nazi apologist they'd have you believe the Sherman was a shitty tank compared to "zee über panzer." The Sherman was a dependable tank with some flaws and oversights but it still had some good features and it could be upgraded to make it more competitive. That's about the best you can hope for when you're jumping into a giant war with a debut design.
Hahaha they really have to actively be looking to get offended by anything a communist or simply someone with an accurate understanding of history says. That person didn't even deny that allies contributed, they're just stating the fact that the USSR liberated most of Nazi occupied Europe and defeated fascism. That's not controversial, pick something else to get irrationally angry about.
This is where the liberals use this meme:
tfw u build schools, apartments and hospitals that are still standing to this day despite lack of maintenance, have pretty progressive laws for the time, massively improve living standards only for some dumbass on the internet to compare you to the Nazis.
Look, the PRL had a lot of issues (polish comrades know this damn well), but holy fucking shit man you cannot compare it to German-occupied Poland, where there were Ghettos everywhere and fucking concentration camps (Sobibor, Treblinka, Auschwitz, etc.).
Just like Parenti said, where were the half-starved masses when socialism fell? Where were the countless political prisoners we were told about?
To add to Parenti's argument why did things like nutrition, poverty, life expectancy, income inequality, etc. get worse after the Soviet Union fell apart?
Well you see, anything that remotely acknowledges that the Soviet Union contributed anything to the war effort is a putin puppet and a fascist
I do think lend lease was quite important to the Soviet victory (probably inevitable without it but it saved a shit ton of lives with food delivery which is very good and should be acknowledged and lauded) however it was up to the Soviets to effectively use said supplies so it's still not the argumentative coup these NATO brains think it is.
Lend lease was something around 4% of total Soviet war materials used, it only started to arrive in noticeable amounts in 1943, and a lot of arms send were more or less obsolete crap like the M3 Lee tanks or Airacobra fighters. It did have some effects like large number of US trucks freed some Soviet manufacturing to produce something else or when abovementioned obsolete crap was issued to second line troops allowing for more concentration of good equipment, but overall it was FAR from the importance murican propaganda makes you believe it had.
Thanks for bringing up the raw figures, I always think its like 10% but thats still a wild overestimate. That's why I mentioned things like food or the trucks because I do remember reading that those were quite helpful and they benefitted the civilian population as well as the Red Army. American propaganda would have you believing that Sherman tanks with red stars were rolling through Berlin with the amount of "but Lend-Lease!" that they toss about.
It's funny that American propaganda is so nazi apologist they'd have you believe the Sherman was a shitty tank compared to "zee über panzer." The Sherman was a dependable tank with some flaws and oversights but it still had some good features and it could be upgraded to make it more competitive. That's about the best you can hope for when you're jumping into a giant war with a debut design.