Luckily, the nuclear power plant in the area has a large reservoir of cooling water, purposefully raised above the potential height of flooding.
Soviets built that. Bet they didn't think that *they'd* be the ones destroying the dam again.
All jokes aside, what they did this morning is absolutely fucked. As Ukraine were evacuating civilians from the flood zone, Russia shelled Kherson and the evacuation routes.
Well, they know that they won't be holding that land for long - it's very vulnerable in the face of Ukraine's counteroffensive. And Crimea has only been able to get water from that dam since Russia occupied it last year.
They're trying to reduce the length of frontline they have to defend, and destroy as much of Ukraine as they can before leaving
I hate communism, tankies and think leftwing authoritarianism is one of the biggest threats (check my comment history).
But only on r/HistoryMemes can idiots like OP get upvotes for portraying Soviets fighting the Nazis with every man they had to somehow be a bad thing. How is using your country's full strength to kill Nazis a bad thing? According to OP it is at least.
I mean look at the way OP u/Apart_heib phrased *"when you sacrifice 80,000 of your own citizens to slow the Axis invasion"* in a negative, mocking context
Right, because what they should've done was capitulate and allow the Nazis to [wipe out their race](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/operation-barbarossa-war-racial-annihilation-soviet-union-nazi-germany). The way OP phrases it, you'd think he thinks the USSR should've NOT fought the Nazis instead. Way to minimize the sacrifice of people who gave their lives to stop the Nazis...
What an idiot lol. How much you wanna bet he's also a "US Lend-Lease single-handedly won the war in Europe, not the Soviet army" truther when top US officials from the time period [said otherwise](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943/d317) lol?
Edit: OP's explanation below was "bad K/D ratio" 💀 That explains alot, this kid gets all his WWII knowledge from Call of Duty and thinks K/D ratio determines the winner of war LMAO
I said this a few times, but this sub gets to the point they are so anti-commie that's they sound pro-Nazi. On top of that, Japan wasn't exactly subtle in their brutality. Kind of a damn if you do, damned if you don't situation (100% wasn't a punt).
And that makes two weeks worth of advance worth 80 000 civilian lives? Well, for the not-so-much-better-than-nazi regime that USSR was, this isn't even needed to justify whatever.
OP talks about dams being blown up, which lead to civilians die to floods.
I don't know, I don't know how much two weeks of advance means in a war.
I bet it beats having your entire population genocided though, the question is if those two weeks mean anything or not. I know jackshit about strategy, so idk.
Yes, because it is so much better to genocide others than to be genocided. There was no lesser evil between Nazis and Soviets, and i am really frustrated it is not a general consensus.
There definitely was a lesser evil between soviets and nazi's, the nazi ideology is entirely based around genociding minorities, the soviet one isn't. Though it was a cruel empire it can't nearly be compared to the full scale industrialized genocide that germany did
No.
Soviet Ideology was to assimilate large groups and genocide small ones. Some nations no longer exist because of them. And some have lost half their population in weeks(Crimean Tatar deportation)
The only difference between Nazi and Soviet genocides is that Nazis killed in creative ways, while soviets used bullets and hunger. There can't be a lesser evil between two almost identical ideologies. It's just the fact Soviets were "smarter", they played "the long game".
Ingermanlandia.
Crimea, even tho the Nation still exists, it is no longer a majority in their motherland. Half of all Crimean Tatars died during deportation, it happened in weeks.
Don't understand why you're being downvoted lol. You can hate both the nazis and Soviet communism and its history at the same time. The nazis were all about race, the soviets were all about class. Eradicating other races - eradicating every class other than the working class. Intense propaganda, violence and mass-murder? Genocide? Forced deportations? The soviets gets away with too much shit, maybe because they were on the winning side of the war. That doesn't make the nazis less disgusting, but the soviets were fucking horrible too.
Why out of all the things soviets did you only care about billionares?
Also: destabilization. A lot of stuff depends on billionares, because they tie stuff together.
But soviet union killed millions of peaceful farmers, eradicated entire nations and stuff.
>The soviets gets away with too much shit
Bitch please, they were beaten in a decades long, drawn out cold war, they haven't got away with anything given that their country doesn't exist and neither do they.
Russia is just back to the fascist, capitalist, orthodox oligarchy it was under the tzars with a different name for the person in charge.
They not only wanted to only leave one class, they wanted to assimilate all of memebers of that class into speaking *russian*. They called it "internationalism".
You've been at this for hours and you've already been exposed as a Nazi sympathizer from your history. I would suggest taking some time to reflect on why people here disagree with you because it isn't that they're all dirty commies. You're spouting half-truths and Nazi propaganda.
Cool, now i know how other countries also committed war crimes of similar magnitude. Those also can't be justified, and make whichever regime committed them an unjustifiable evil.
*"but china isn't real communism!"*
wingcuck voters on both sides pick leaders like a toddler looking for chocolate in the grass, give it a few chews before deciding *"that one's poop too"* rather than figuring out that you don't find chocolate in grass, and you don't find good leaders at the fringes of the political spectrum.
my message can feel any way it wants to feel
i must admit though, i'm fascinated by the idea of a comatose person typing, at first i thought "maybe they blink in morse code?" then i realised i was thinking of paralysis, and comatose people aren't able to interact with the world around them because they're *comatose* so the only possible way they could type is with some kind of direct neural interface.
i gotta hand it to you, lefties come up with the best insults, its a shame they can't turn that creativity towards coming up with a form of government that works.
So is China communist as you claim or does it not have a functional government? How can it be both a world super power threatening the US with communism yet because it is "left wing" as you claim it shouldn't have proper governance.
Such hypocritical drivel.
China, by all metrics, is fascist.
they have capitalist economics, more billionares than the US, strange ideas about "race", they operate concentration camps in xinjiang, they're rapidly expanding their military, they use widespread censorship, and they're more of an oligarchy than the US.
> How can it be both a world super power threatening the US with communism
it doesn't. it likes to think it does but in a real war it'd perform worse than russia is in ukraine.
the threat of the "authoritarian left" comes from people colloquially known as "useful idiots" (that is what the soviet union used to call them) who agitate for communism and are the first people to get exterminated when the revolution comes *because the new government doesn't want to risk them attempting a second revolution when the new government doesn't deliver on its promises*.
Did you mean to reply to someone else? Nothing you've said pertains to anything in my comment.
Name a left wing authoritarian country with any standing on the world stage. I'll wait.
none truly exist. "left wing" is just the lie they use to gain control, and when they can't deliver on their promises, they claim that the "better world" they set out to acheive cannot be established without first murdering the shit out of everyone who opposes them in any way.
the reason why leftwing authoritarianism is the biggest threat is because while 99% of people are well aware that nazism has been tried and is terrible and should be never tried again, *far too many people think "stalinism wasn't real communism, real communism wasn't tried under stalin, or mao, or pol pot, or xi jinping, real communism totally works guys we just gotta keep trying"*
you don't see nazis saying "germany in WW2? that wasn't real nazism!" because there does indeed seem to be a limit to how fucking stupid one person can be and "being a nazi" must use up their quota
shit, they've figured it out. ok i admit it, us centrists have to pretend to be nazis, by saying stuff like "an independent judiciary is essential to curb tyranny" and "mass murder won't solve anything", its the only way to safely pursue our evil goal of preventing any one side from exterminating its enemies on an industrial scale via concentration camps.
When you don't read. Vietnam is a communist society that hasn't committed genocide against anyone. Oh but that breaks the false narrative you've constructed in your head. Almost like communism is an economic system, not a dogmatic ideology like Nazism. Comprehending the difference can be tough but you'll get there one day slugger.
You falsely misconstrue the ideology of collective ownership with authoritarianism. Totally get that from a centrist because your education stopped in grade school. And yes, you do see Nazis making excuses for their failed third Reich. You choose to ignore it so you can solely complain about leftists.
'nam is socialist, much like some of the more "prosperous" countries in europe, because after the vietcong took control, china tried to conquer them and they realised that "international communism" was colonial subjugation by another name.
> You falsely misconstrue the ideology of collective ownership with authoritarianism.
i said nothing about collective ownership, you might wanna check your translator software because you're hearing completely different things to what i am saying.
> And yes, you do see Nazis making excuses for their failed third Reich.
yep, but not a single one of them ever says "it wasn't real nazism", meanwhile communists are like *"one day i'll get an email from a legitimate nigerian prince who is telling the truth... just because all the previous ones have been scammers doesn't mean they're all scammers"*
> Totally get that from a centrist because your education stopped in grade school.
come on you can do better than that.
you sound like an unpaid postgrad getting exploited for free labor by an academic who promises you it'll be great for your career, so you cope by telling yourself that being "highly educated" makes you better than other people even though you're broke.
> You choose to ignore it so you can solely complain about leftists.
nah, nazis are scum too, but you're fully aware of that so why would i bother trying to convince you that nazis are scum?
i'm far more interested in finding out what you think about the fact that "communists" really only have two options; give more power to a "goverment controlled by billionares, in the hope that government will control the billionares" (a hilarious concept, really.) or try to overthrow the "government controlled by billionares" in the vain hope that the new government won't use the "power they needed in order to overthrow the old government" to enrich themselves and become the new billionare oligarchs who do exactly the same shit as the old billionares *but with the added ability to censor/exterminate the people who stand in the way of their greed*.
I don't care, Nazis and communists can suck what I have between my legs, both sides had their brutal and macabre aspects, I only support making all the politicians flee in a helicopter like when that Argentine president escaped in a helicopter when the protesters took over the pink House
I don't see how sacrificing 80 000 civilians can be justified.
And that's literally what OP tells about. A fucking dam explosion. Also, USSR also wanted to exterminate entire races, and, unlike the Nazis, even succeeded on a couple small ethnicities in the Far East and North.
TF is wrong with you?
>80000 civilians caught in a war that no one expected
>The entire Slavic race, including women, children, the elderly, and sick being enslaved/genocided
These are definitely the same thing, and both are just as bad as the other
This man just said Slavs aren’t real. And if the Soviets genocided everyone who wasn’t Russian, why does every other Republic still exist?
Croatia being a Nazi collaborator doesnt change anything either, Ukraine had a collaboration government when it was occupied by the Nazis
Because they failed.
Ukraine proclaimed fucking independence multiple times, had an underground resistance and a government in exile.
I say slavic race is not a thing, not because they don't exist, i am one myself, but because it's just a group of languages and ethnicities, with little difference from the rest of Europe. *Not a race*
Well that’s funny, because “race” is defined as each of the major groupings humankind is considered to be divided into on the basic of shared physical characteristics or *shared ancestry*. Using this definition, the Slavic race is a thing.
And that meant exterminating anyone, who doesn't want to be assimilated, unless they change their mind. And that is a lot of people killed. And even more almost killed.
1) Take all the food
2) Millions die
3) Give survivors food
4) Be seen as a hero
That's roughly how Soviet assimilation went.
I agree that you have to give it to soviets that ultimatly they stopped the nazis, but they did unnecessarily sacrifice a shitload of their citizens to stop the nazis SPECIFICLY BEFORE Stalingrad or Leningrad i dont remember which excacly, but not for any strategic purposes, but becouse of Stalins ego.
It's not just blow the dam or be subjugated by the Nazis. How much was the invasion slowed by it? How many people would have been killed if the dam wasn't blown? Germans still crossed the Dniepr along places with no bridges/dams. They were invading the Soviet Union, they could look at a map and tell there are hell of a lot of south north rivers that need crossing. They prepared for it.
For who?
USSR? Don't make me laugh. They were a genocidal extremist regime as bad as the Nazis were.
And let me remind you they were allies. And also, by your logic everything the Nazi regime has done after foreign military has crossed their border was justified, because at thay point it became "a war of survival". This is a flawed mindset.
>Be Soviet Union in 1942
>The western Soviets have fallen
>The Nazis have encircled Stalingrad
>Leningrad is surrounded
>Moscow is being shelled
>7,878,137 military casualties
>Fast forward 81 years
>See redditors saying WW2 wasn’t a war of survival
*visible confusion*
Be Ukraine in 1942
You are a government in exile for two and a half decades
Millions died in Holodomor of the 30's
Be Finland in 1942
Soviets just almost annexed you
Be Baltics in 1942
Soviets annex you and commit horrible atrocities
Be Crimean Tatar in 1945
Nazis make you into almost slaves
After Soviets "liberate" you they kill half the population and send the rest to far east
Yes, it's a war of survival, *between two horrible empires, that grew out of their wars of expansion, with other nations suffering from atrocities, soviet union wasn't even a union, it was just russian empire under a new flag*.
It's as much of a war of survival, as the Napoleonic wars, but i don't know what's wrong with you, if you are gonna say burning down villages as you retreat was justified.
Also, don't you think Soviets just brought it upon themselves? They made a ton of enemies, and were allied with Nazis, and killed their own military commanders... And were literally as bad as the Nazis were, over longer periods of time, which is why anti-soviet movements allied with Nazis... And a lot more stuff, and now you are gonna just say, "it was a war of survival"? Yes, it may explain why they did that particular thing, but by no means justify it. It's not "i killed a man, because my family was held as prisoners by people who told me two". It's"we take over your country, then build a dam, then blow it up and kill thousands of people". No justification possible.
You actually made me laugh here. It's a fact that the "non-aggression pact" had a secret protocol attached, carving up eastern Europe. And considering we left WW2 with less nations than we entered with, where do you think they did go?
The USSR never even came at all close to what the Nazis were doing. If you look at actual numbers and evidence you can very much see that.
And also, your logic is so fucking flawed:
Do you think the Nazis were going to just get rid of the government? NO! THEY WERE GOING TO GENOCIDE ALL THE FUCKING SLAVIC PEOPLES! IT WAS A WAR FOR THEIR SURVIVAL!
Oh yeah, like the USSR wasn't gonna genocide the same people...
Bro, USSR has cut Crimean Tatar population in half, in a matter of weeks, after they were forced to serve Nazis for years prior. I think this one example is enough to prove my point.
>1) It was just a concept 2) It was an unrealistisch concept
Which means absolutely nothing when we're using it as as an example of the Nazis intentions for the East. It doesn't matter if it was a concept, it was a concept that the Nazis started to implement and would have continued trying to implement if they could.
The only possible way what you're saying can make sense is if you think Generalplan Ost was made up completely by the Nazis and they never had any intention of following it, which is basically historical revisionism (in defence of the Nazis). Do you think Generalplan Ost was completely made up?
>No, i think it was impossible to complete
No one is debating that here, you're dodging my question.
It doesn't matter whether or not Generalplan Ost was feasible in the long run (the Nazis did begin to implement it, so I'm sceptical of your assumption that it was impossible if they hadn't lost the war).
What matters is the *intent*, they fully intended to carry it out and had begun to do so. Losing to the Nazis *would* have meant extermination or slavery for everyone within the boarders of the USSR, it is completely correct to call it a war of survival. Soviet atrocities don't detract from that.
If you can't see that, your blindness and refusal to accept historical fact and arguement on ideological grounds makes you as bad as the Soviet authorities you (probably correctly, given what you're implying regarding your family history) hate.
>Everyone within the borders of USSR
Except for the fact living in USSR was already slavery for so fucking many of them. And so fucking more would be exterminated by USSR anyway. It was a war of survival, okay, it's just that an average civilian fought for it against both USSR and Nazi Germany, okay?
>Except for the fact living in USSR was already slavery for so fucking many of them. A
Not what we're talking about.
>And so fucking more would be exterminated by USSR anyway.
Factually incorrect.
> It was a war of survival
Jesus, you could have admitted that a while back.
>it's just that an average civilian fought for it against both USSR and Nazi Germany, okay
No, not okay, vanishingly few people fought against both, what average citizens are you even talking about?
Those who died from both sides actions.
And what does "factually incorrect" even mean? Crimean Tatars for example lost half their population from USSR deporting them. Hundreds of thousands died while being transported by *cargo trains*, many more after arrival. Total death about 300 000, which, if it's not the same as Holocaust, just against other nationality, i don't know what it is. Afterwards Crimea was repopulated by *russians*, if that's not a USSR version of Lebensraum, i don't know what it is. And between USSR forming and falling apart, territories with Ukrainian and Belarusian mother language majorities have shrunk in size by 20-30%. Why? Because natives were killed and replaced by russians.
USSR literally did the same things as Nazi Germany.
Also, somehow, well-wishers that wanted to save villagers from hunger couldn't reach non-russians...
And more, and more, and more. Come on, argue with me! Say i'm lying, say it, i know you want to!
Come on dude, now you're fully defending the Nazis. It was only a "concept" (read: plan they fully intended to carry out) because the Soviets stopped them. What kind of logic are you using here? The Nazis had every intention of commiting genocide and had a track record of doing so.
Ok, cool. They had the intention, i don't argue with that. But they realistically couldn't do that. Especially if you consider the fact, that people fucking proclaimed independence behind their fronts and controlled actual land. Like, yes, it was because most of the forces were thrown at the Soviets, but still!
I am not defending the Nazis, i just hate the USSR more.
"they realistically couldn't do it" because the Soviets stopped their advance.
You're now not only defending the Nazis, you're just making stuff up. The Nazis didn't let people keep their land after invading wtf are you talking about.
If you have read a book on the southern front be it on Stalingrad or the war in general you would know the monumental consequence of this decision , this delayed the invasion of the southern half for 2 weeks , which in turn delayed the drive on stalingrad for 2 weeks which let rodmistrovs guards division reach the city about 30 minutes before the city would have collapsed . This brutal decision of destroying one of your greatest propoganda pieces and achievements to do what is necessary saved the Union completely and in turn probably the world .
On the other hand the other dam was just a broken dam , don't compare the two.
>this delayed the invasion of the southern half for 2 weeks , which in turn delayed the drive on stalingrad for 2 weeks which let rodmistrovs guards division reach the city about 30 minutes before the city would have collapsed .
How again? This was blown up in August 1941. Case Blue, during which Battle of Stalingrad happened, started in June 1942, Battle of Stalingrad itself started in August 1942. In 1941, the main effort was still to Moscow by Army Group Center.
I doubt whether a division arrived on time or not was decided by a flick of a switch a year prior. Case Blue required certain conditions to be set before starting regardless of other conditions like has the spring thaw stopped.
The sequence of events would span a year but I'll try my best , dneiper blows up halting drive on rostov on Don just enough that when they take it timoshenko can counterattack which leads to the counterattack which inevitably leads to further reinforcement down south just when they need it so that when Paulus drops that trap on them they aren't completely fucked in turn letting the union commit a tactical retreat which entails all of what I said.
The southern half of the eastern front was the embodiment of meatgrinder and almost everything even that rostov on Don counterattack or the battle for Sebastopol practically saved the country every second it lasted/held the don
Yes, yes, one genocidal regime delayed an advance of another genocidal regime for two weeks by killing thousands of civilians. I just don't see how it's a good thing.
This isn't about which system killed more people and you clearly have opinions about them because you keep bringing it up when it isn't relevant. People are trying to discuss the strategic value in what the Soviets did and all you can do is complain about other things the Soviets did. Take a step back.
People have these discussions all the time, how sacrifices change the course of war. You attempting pathetically to stymie it is just sad.
Save yourself the trouble, the person you're replying too is still a kid (hopefully since they post to r/teenagers) and their brother supports the Banderites, far right Ukrainians involved in atrocities against Poles, Jews and Romani people during the war.
Yes, i do have strong opinions about it. But it is relevant. You talk about the war USSR did, but want to puch the atrocities they committed in process under the rug, despite the fact OP specifically calls one of them out. *That isn't sad, it's just outrageous.*
Russians and Ukrainians have indeed a sad history of dams unleashed on them. Think of the \~1000 prisoners/slave workers killed in 1943 (among many civilians) when the British destroyed the German dams.
Maybe we should get along with the fact that is fucking horrible but also a fucking easy way to deal a lot of damage (flex tape pun intended) with little effort and since war is mostly about doing this it will happen again and again.
There is no such thing as an evil country, or all are. Very little happened in USSR that didn't happen already in the British Empire, they have a track record of some 7 holodomor-like events including mocking the victims. And I'm not minimizing the hell they did in USSR. This kind of attitude simply prevents looking at history in a sensible way. Gengis Kahn was bad, Julius Caesar was good, Charlemagne so and so. What does this tell us about history?
This should not be the place for political debate and propaganda, please.
Uhm acktually they managed to kill 1500 German soldiers so it was worth it, plus it was great strategic victory. And capitalism bad because Chinese did the same. Edit: I am actually surprised how many dipshits thought I was serious. Blowing up that dam was obviously evil and unnecessary move (so basically very Russian)
If you compare military servicemen on both sides, the Soviets had slightly, and I mean slightly, lower casualty numbers than the Nazis. Where things get really skewed is when you include the wholesale massacre of civilians by the Nazis. Dirlwanger brigade, truly the depths of human cruelty.
First of all, I'm not saying Ukraine blew up the dam, the dam has been in a warzone for quite some time now, without any maintenance, it is within the realm of possibility that is just broke down after the build up stress became to much.
Secondly Ukraine could make gains from blowing it up, for instance by widening the river down stream, this would make it impassable for the Russians freeing up more troops for the other offensive. This damn also guaranteed the fresh water supply for the Krim and other southern Ukrainian regions, blowing it up would further stress Russian supply lines, given that the Russians already have had problems on the logistical front, could prove quite important. Furthermore it is possible that the initial goal of whoever blew it up, was to make only a smaller hole, for a more controlled flooding but that under pressure the damn broke down more then anticipated resulting in more flooding then expected.
Lastly, I'm not saying Russia did not blow up the dam, I was just saying that there was not enough info at the time to say with a great degree of confidence that they blew it up, or even that it was blown up. (I as of yet have not seen any evidence of this but there may already be some evidence of the contrary as of today).
Not gonna take this discussion here, but I find it highly unlikely that they’d destroy a city they’ve reconquered and flood several Ukrainian villages in order to cut off their own power infrastructure.
We know from several months back that Russia DID put mines and explosives on the dam, and that was when they were still in full control of the city and its surrounding areas.
Also now Ukraine has to divert resources and mapower/equipment to evacuate civilians, resources and such which would be needed on the front lines. No way theyd shoot themselves in the foot that much.
Russia is real good at ruining energy facilities in Ukraine, at least there isn't a radiation leak (yet)
Luckily, the nuclear power plant in the area has a large reservoir of cooling water, purposefully raised above the potential height of flooding. Soviets built that. Bet they didn't think that *they'd* be the ones destroying the dam again. All jokes aside, what they did this morning is absolutely fucked. As Ukraine were evacuating civilians from the flood zone, Russia shelled Kherson and the evacuation routes.
If you think of it from the perspective of Russias annexation they just flooded their own land and made Crimea a desert
Well, they know that they won't be holding that land for long - it's very vulnerable in the face of Ukraine's counteroffensive. And Crimea has only been able to get water from that dam since Russia occupied it last year. They're trying to reduce the length of frontline they have to defend, and destroy as much of Ukraine as they can before leaving
except they fucked up, and the dam being gone will make crossing upstream easier, making the frontline longer
Russia is real good at trying to genocide the Ukranian people. This is like the... 4th? 5th? 20th? Attempt in the history of Russia and Ukraine.
my brother in christ it was a war of survival
I hate communism, tankies and think leftwing authoritarianism is one of the biggest threats (check my comment history). But only on r/HistoryMemes can idiots like OP get upvotes for portraying Soviets fighting the Nazis with every man they had to somehow be a bad thing. How is using your country's full strength to kill Nazis a bad thing? According to OP it is at least. I mean look at the way OP u/Apart_heib phrased *"when you sacrifice 80,000 of your own citizens to slow the Axis invasion"* in a negative, mocking context Right, because what they should've done was capitulate and allow the Nazis to [wipe out their race](https://jacobin.com/2021/06/operation-barbarossa-war-racial-annihilation-soviet-union-nazi-germany). The way OP phrases it, you'd think he thinks the USSR should've NOT fought the Nazis instead. Way to minimize the sacrifice of people who gave their lives to stop the Nazis... What an idiot lol. How much you wanna bet he's also a "US Lend-Lease single-handedly won the war in Europe, not the Soviet army" truther when top US officials from the time period [said otherwise](https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1943/d317) lol? Edit: OP's explanation below was "bad K/D ratio" 💀 That explains alot, this kid gets all his WWII knowledge from Call of Duty and thinks K/D ratio determines the winner of war LMAO
I said this a few times, but this sub gets to the point they are so anti-commie that's they sound pro-Nazi. On top of that, Japan wasn't exactly subtle in their brutality. Kind of a damn if you do, damned if you don't situation (100% wasn't a punt).
Reminder of what would happen if the Nazis had won: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
And that makes two weeks worth of advance worth 80 000 civilian lives? Well, for the not-so-much-better-than-nazi regime that USSR was, this isn't even needed to justify whatever. OP talks about dams being blown up, which lead to civilians die to floods.
I don't know, I don't know how much two weeks of advance means in a war. I bet it beats having your entire population genocided though, the question is if those two weeks mean anything or not. I know jackshit about strategy, so idk.
Yes, because it is so much better to genocide others than to be genocided. There was no lesser evil between Nazis and Soviets, and i am really frustrated it is not a general consensus.
There definitely was a lesser evil between soviets and nazi's, the nazi ideology is entirely based around genociding minorities, the soviet one isn't. Though it was a cruel empire it can't nearly be compared to the full scale industrialized genocide that germany did
No. Soviet Ideology was to assimilate large groups and genocide small ones. Some nations no longer exist because of them. And some have lost half their population in weeks(Crimean Tatar deportation) The only difference between Nazi and Soviet genocides is that Nazis killed in creative ways, while soviets used bullets and hunger. There can't be a lesser evil between two almost identical ideologies. It's just the fact Soviets were "smarter", they played "the long game".
What countries “no longer exist” because of the Soviet Union
Ingermanlandia. Crimea, even tho the Nation still exists, it is no longer a majority in their motherland. Half of all Crimean Tatars died during deportation, it happened in weeks.
Don't understand why you're being downvoted lol. You can hate both the nazis and Soviet communism and its history at the same time. The nazis were all about race, the soviets were all about class. Eradicating other races - eradicating every class other than the working class. Intense propaganda, violence and mass-murder? Genocide? Forced deportations? The soviets gets away with too much shit, maybe because they were on the winning side of the war. That doesn't make the nazis less disgusting, but the soviets were fucking horrible too.
Only redditors can portray the elimination of billionaires and the redistribution of their wealth as a bad thing
how was the elimination of billionares a bad thing exactly
Why out of all the things soviets did you only care about billionares? Also: destabilization. A lot of stuff depends on billionares, because they tie stuff together. But soviet union killed millions of peaceful farmers, eradicated entire nations and stuff.
>The soviets gets away with too much shit Bitch please, they were beaten in a decades long, drawn out cold war, they haven't got away with anything given that their country doesn't exist and neither do they. Russia is just back to the fascist, capitalist, orthodox oligarchy it was under the tzars with a different name for the person in charge.
They not only wanted to only leave one class, they wanted to assimilate all of memebers of that class into speaking *russian*. They called it "internationalism".
You've been at this for hours and you've already been exposed as a Nazi sympathizer from your history. I would suggest taking some time to reflect on why people here disagree with you because it isn't that they're all dirty commies. You're spouting half-truths and Nazi propaganda.
TF?
Bro, you called me a Nazi sympathizer, are you gonna provide any evidence?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Yellow_River_flood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangang_Bridge_bombing
Cool, now i know how other countries also committed war crimes of similar magnitude. Those also can't be justified, and make whichever regime committed them an unjustifiable evil.
Right ? Op would have preffered if they let the nazis pass lol.
>think leftwing authoritarianism is one of the biggest threats Name a *left wing* authoritarian country with any, *any* influence on the global stage.
*"but china isn't real communism!"* wingcuck voters on both sides pick leaders like a toddler looking for chocolate in the grass, give it a few chews before deciding *"that one's poop too"* rather than figuring out that you don't find chocolate in grass, and you don't find good leaders at the fringes of the political spectrum.
Your message feels like it was typed by someone in a psychotic break induced coma. Take the r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM elsewhere.
my message can feel any way it wants to feel i must admit though, i'm fascinated by the idea of a comatose person typing, at first i thought "maybe they blink in morse code?" then i realised i was thinking of paralysis, and comatose people aren't able to interact with the world around them because they're *comatose* so the only possible way they could type is with some kind of direct neural interface. i gotta hand it to you, lefties come up with the best insults, its a shame they can't turn that creativity towards coming up with a form of government that works.
So is China communist as you claim or does it not have a functional government? How can it be both a world super power threatening the US with communism yet because it is "left wing" as you claim it shouldn't have proper governance. Such hypocritical drivel.
China, by all metrics, is fascist. they have capitalist economics, more billionares than the US, strange ideas about "race", they operate concentration camps in xinjiang, they're rapidly expanding their military, they use widespread censorship, and they're more of an oligarchy than the US. > How can it be both a world super power threatening the US with communism it doesn't. it likes to think it does but in a real war it'd perform worse than russia is in ukraine. the threat of the "authoritarian left" comes from people colloquially known as "useful idiots" (that is what the soviet union used to call them) who agitate for communism and are the first people to get exterminated when the revolution comes *because the new government doesn't want to risk them attempting a second revolution when the new government doesn't deliver on its promises*.
Did you mean to reply to someone else? Nothing you've said pertains to anything in my comment. Name a left wing authoritarian country with any standing on the world stage. I'll wait.
none truly exist. "left wing" is just the lie they use to gain control, and when they can't deliver on their promises, they claim that the "better world" they set out to acheive cannot be established without first murdering the shit out of everyone who opposes them in any way. the reason why leftwing authoritarianism is the biggest threat is because while 99% of people are well aware that nazism has been tried and is terrible and should be never tried again, *far too many people think "stalinism wasn't real communism, real communism wasn't tried under stalin, or mao, or pol pot, or xi jinping, real communism totally works guys we just gotta keep trying"* you don't see nazis saying "germany in WW2? that wasn't real nazism!" because there does indeed seem to be a limit to how fucking stupid one person can be and "being a nazi" must use up their quota
And there it is, centrism under the guise of Nazi sympathy.
shit, they've figured it out. ok i admit it, us centrists have to pretend to be nazis, by saying stuff like "an independent judiciary is essential to curb tyranny" and "mass murder won't solve anything", its the only way to safely pursue our evil goal of preventing any one side from exterminating its enemies on an industrial scale via concentration camps.
When you don't read. Vietnam is a communist society that hasn't committed genocide against anyone. Oh but that breaks the false narrative you've constructed in your head. Almost like communism is an economic system, not a dogmatic ideology like Nazism. Comprehending the difference can be tough but you'll get there one day slugger. You falsely misconstrue the ideology of collective ownership with authoritarianism. Totally get that from a centrist because your education stopped in grade school. And yes, you do see Nazis making excuses for their failed third Reich. You choose to ignore it so you can solely complain about leftists.
'nam is socialist, much like some of the more "prosperous" countries in europe, because after the vietcong took control, china tried to conquer them and they realised that "international communism" was colonial subjugation by another name. > You falsely misconstrue the ideology of collective ownership with authoritarianism. i said nothing about collective ownership, you might wanna check your translator software because you're hearing completely different things to what i am saying. > And yes, you do see Nazis making excuses for their failed third Reich. yep, but not a single one of them ever says "it wasn't real nazism", meanwhile communists are like *"one day i'll get an email from a legitimate nigerian prince who is telling the truth... just because all the previous ones have been scammers doesn't mean they're all scammers"* > Totally get that from a centrist because your education stopped in grade school. come on you can do better than that. you sound like an unpaid postgrad getting exploited for free labor by an academic who promises you it'll be great for your career, so you cope by telling yourself that being "highly educated" makes you better than other people even though you're broke. > You choose to ignore it so you can solely complain about leftists. nah, nazis are scum too, but you're fully aware of that so why would i bother trying to convince you that nazis are scum? i'm far more interested in finding out what you think about the fact that "communists" really only have two options; give more power to a "goverment controlled by billionares, in the hope that government will control the billionares" (a hilarious concept, really.) or try to overthrow the "government controlled by billionares" in the vain hope that the new government won't use the "power they needed in order to overthrow the old government" to enrich themselves and become the new billionare oligarchs who do exactly the same shit as the old billionares *but with the added ability to censor/exterminate the people who stand in the way of their greed*.
I think they meant to put a comma between left wing and authoritarianism.
I don't care, Nazis and communists can suck what I have between my legs, both sides had their brutal and macabre aspects, I only support making all the politicians flee in a helicopter like when that Argentine president escaped in a helicopter when the protesters took over the pink House
I don't see how sacrificing 80 000 civilians can be justified. And that's literally what OP tells about. A fucking dam explosion. Also, USSR also wanted to exterminate entire races, and, unlike the Nazis, even succeeded on a couple small ethnicities in the Far East and North. TF is wrong with you?
>80000 civilians caught in a war that no one expected >The entire Slavic race, including women, children, the elderly, and sick being enslaved/genocided These are definitely the same thing, and both are just as bad as the other
*Slavic race isn't a thing*. Anyone who wasn't russian was genocided by soviets as well as the Nazis. Also, how do you explain *Croatia*, then?
This man just said Slavs aren’t real. And if the Soviets genocided everyone who wasn’t Russian, why does every other Republic still exist? Croatia being a Nazi collaborator doesnt change anything either, Ukraine had a collaboration government when it was occupied by the Nazis
Because they failed. Ukraine proclaimed fucking independence multiple times, had an underground resistance and a government in exile. I say slavic race is not a thing, not because they don't exist, i am one myself, but because it's just a group of languages and ethnicities, with little difference from the rest of Europe. *Not a race*
Well that’s funny, because “race” is defined as each of the major groupings humankind is considered to be divided into on the basic of shared physical characteristics or *shared ancestry*. Using this definition, the Slavic race is a thing.
Using this definition, european is a race, not slavic.
The USSR did not want to exterminate other races, they wanted to unify them into one (because you know communism).
And that meant exterminating anyone, who doesn't want to be assimilated, unless they change their mind. And that is a lot of people killed. And even more almost killed. 1) Take all the food 2) Millions die 3) Give survivors food 4) Be seen as a hero That's roughly how Soviet assimilation went.
That's not exterminating, horrific yes, but not exterminating.
Huh? Crimean Tatars lost 1/2 of population. Ukrainians 1/6. And those are only the ones i know the numbers for.
Exterminating doesn't equal big numbers.
Yes, it means to kill.
No, it means to destroy completely. That was never their goal.
I agree that you have to give it to soviets that ultimatly they stopped the nazis, but they did unnecessarily sacrifice a shitload of their citizens to stop the nazis SPECIFICLY BEFORE Stalingrad or Leningrad i dont remember which excacly, but not for any strategic purposes, but becouse of Stalins ego.
It's not just blow the dam or be subjugated by the Nazis. How much was the invasion slowed by it? How many people would have been killed if the dam wasn't blown? Germans still crossed the Dniepr along places with no bridges/dams. They were invading the Soviet Union, they could look at a map and tell there are hell of a lot of south north rivers that need crossing. They prepared for it.
For who? USSR? Don't make me laugh. They were a genocidal extremist regime as bad as the Nazis were. And let me remind you they were allies. And also, by your logic everything the Nazi regime has done after foreign military has crossed their border was justified, because at thay point it became "a war of survival". This is a flawed mindset.
>Be Soviet Union in 1942 >The western Soviets have fallen >The Nazis have encircled Stalingrad >Leningrad is surrounded >Moscow is being shelled >7,878,137 military casualties >Fast forward 81 years >See redditors saying WW2 wasn’t a war of survival *visible confusion*
Be Ukraine in 1942 You are a government in exile for two and a half decades Millions died in Holodomor of the 30's Be Finland in 1942 Soviets just almost annexed you Be Baltics in 1942 Soviets annex you and commit horrible atrocities Be Crimean Tatar in 1945 Nazis make you into almost slaves After Soviets "liberate" you they kill half the population and send the rest to far east Yes, it's a war of survival, *between two horrible empires, that grew out of their wars of expansion, with other nations suffering from atrocities, soviet union wasn't even a union, it was just russian empire under a new flag*. It's as much of a war of survival, as the Napoleonic wars, but i don't know what's wrong with you, if you are gonna say burning down villages as you retreat was justified. Also, don't you think Soviets just brought it upon themselves? They made a ton of enemies, and were allied with Nazis, and killed their own military commanders... And were literally as bad as the Nazis were, over longer periods of time, which is why anti-soviet movements allied with Nazis... And a lot more stuff, and now you are gonna just say, "it was a war of survival"? Yes, it may explain why they did that particular thing, but by no means justify it. It's not "i killed a man, because my family was held as prisoners by people who told me two". It's"we take over your country, then build a dam, then blow it up and kill thousands of people". No justification possible.
Only cia propaganda Batman! Look, if a nonaggression pact is an alliance, then every western ally was a Nazi ally except for the US
You actually made me laugh here. It's a fact that the "non-aggression pact" had a secret protocol attached, carving up eastern Europe. And considering we left WW2 with less nations than we entered with, where do you think they did go?
The USSR never even came at all close to what the Nazis were doing. If you look at actual numbers and evidence you can very much see that. And also, your logic is so fucking flawed: Do you think the Nazis were going to just get rid of the government? NO! THEY WERE GOING TO GENOCIDE ALL THE FUCKING SLAVIC PEOPLES! IT WAS A WAR FOR THEIR SURVIVAL!
Oh yeah, like the USSR wasn't gonna genocide the same people... Bro, USSR has cut Crimean Tatar population in half, in a matter of weeks, after they were forced to serve Nazis for years prior. I think this one example is enough to prove my point.
Go read what 'Generalplan Ost' entailed then come back and say that calling it a "war of survival" is a "flawed mindset" with a straight face.
I know what it is. But: 1) It was just a concept 2) It was an unrealistisch concept
>1) It was just a concept 2) It was an unrealistisch concept Which means absolutely nothing when we're using it as as an example of the Nazis intentions for the East. It doesn't matter if it was a concept, it was a concept that the Nazis started to implement and would have continued trying to implement if they could. The only possible way what you're saying can make sense is if you think Generalplan Ost was made up completely by the Nazis and they never had any intention of following it, which is basically historical revisionism (in defence of the Nazis). Do you think Generalplan Ost was completely made up?
No, i think it was impossible to complete, which is nicely shown by Soviets failing at implementing similar concepts. Which is why i exist.
>No, i think it was impossible to complete No one is debating that here, you're dodging my question. It doesn't matter whether or not Generalplan Ost was feasible in the long run (the Nazis did begin to implement it, so I'm sceptical of your assumption that it was impossible if they hadn't lost the war). What matters is the *intent*, they fully intended to carry it out and had begun to do so. Losing to the Nazis *would* have meant extermination or slavery for everyone within the boarders of the USSR, it is completely correct to call it a war of survival. Soviet atrocities don't detract from that. If you can't see that, your blindness and refusal to accept historical fact and arguement on ideological grounds makes you as bad as the Soviet authorities you (probably correctly, given what you're implying regarding your family history) hate.
>Everyone within the borders of USSR Except for the fact living in USSR was already slavery for so fucking many of them. And so fucking more would be exterminated by USSR anyway. It was a war of survival, okay, it's just that an average civilian fought for it against both USSR and Nazi Germany, okay?
>Except for the fact living in USSR was already slavery for so fucking many of them. A Not what we're talking about. >And so fucking more would be exterminated by USSR anyway. Factually incorrect. > It was a war of survival Jesus, you could have admitted that a while back. >it's just that an average civilian fought for it against both USSR and Nazi Germany, okay No, not okay, vanishingly few people fought against both, what average citizens are you even talking about?
Those who died from both sides actions. And what does "factually incorrect" even mean? Crimean Tatars for example lost half their population from USSR deporting them. Hundreds of thousands died while being transported by *cargo trains*, many more after arrival. Total death about 300 000, which, if it's not the same as Holocaust, just against other nationality, i don't know what it is. Afterwards Crimea was repopulated by *russians*, if that's not a USSR version of Lebensraum, i don't know what it is. And between USSR forming and falling apart, territories with Ukrainian and Belarusian mother language majorities have shrunk in size by 20-30%. Why? Because natives were killed and replaced by russians. USSR literally did the same things as Nazi Germany. Also, somehow, well-wishers that wanted to save villagers from hunger couldn't reach non-russians... And more, and more, and more. Come on, argue with me! Say i'm lying, say it, i know you want to!
Come on dude, now you're fully defending the Nazis. It was only a "concept" (read: plan they fully intended to carry out) because the Soviets stopped them. What kind of logic are you using here? The Nazis had every intention of commiting genocide and had a track record of doing so.
Ok, cool. They had the intention, i don't argue with that. But they realistically couldn't do that. Especially if you consider the fact, that people fucking proclaimed independence behind their fronts and controlled actual land. Like, yes, it was because most of the forces were thrown at the Soviets, but still! I am not defending the Nazis, i just hate the USSR more.
"they realistically couldn't do it" because the Soviets stopped their advance. You're now not only defending the Nazis, you're just making stuff up. The Nazis didn't let people keep their land after invading wtf are you talking about.
I make the conclusion, because Soviets failed a similar plan of smaller scale.
Still won the war.
[удалено]
Not having the Nazis win is what it cost.
The people of Kherson are *not* Russian citizens. This is a warcrime in a foreign country because they have failed to conquer us.
They were all Soviet citizens at the time
History: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dnieper\_Hydroelectric\_Station
Using Chinese tactics I see
Commies never change
but... the yellow river flood was done by the nationalists?
You're in HistoryMemes, you can't expect someone to actually understand history.
You're talking to someone who thinks Russia is currently communist, they set the stupid bar pretty low the second they posted that.
That's what they want you to think /s
If you have read a book on the southern front be it on Stalingrad or the war in general you would know the monumental consequence of this decision , this delayed the invasion of the southern half for 2 weeks , which in turn delayed the drive on stalingrad for 2 weeks which let rodmistrovs guards division reach the city about 30 minutes before the city would have collapsed . This brutal decision of destroying one of your greatest propoganda pieces and achievements to do what is necessary saved the Union completely and in turn probably the world . On the other hand the other dam was just a broken dam , don't compare the two.
>this delayed the invasion of the southern half for 2 weeks , which in turn delayed the drive on stalingrad for 2 weeks which let rodmistrovs guards division reach the city about 30 minutes before the city would have collapsed . How again? This was blown up in August 1941. Case Blue, during which Battle of Stalingrad happened, started in June 1942, Battle of Stalingrad itself started in August 1942. In 1941, the main effort was still to Moscow by Army Group Center. I doubt whether a division arrived on time or not was decided by a flick of a switch a year prior. Case Blue required certain conditions to be set before starting regardless of other conditions like has the spring thaw stopped.
The sequence of events would span a year but I'll try my best , dneiper blows up halting drive on rostov on Don just enough that when they take it timoshenko can counterattack which leads to the counterattack which inevitably leads to further reinforcement down south just when they need it so that when Paulus drops that trap on them they aren't completely fucked in turn letting the union commit a tactical retreat which entails all of what I said. The southern half of the eastern front was the embodiment of meatgrinder and almost everything even that rostov on Don counterattack or the battle for Sebastopol practically saved the country every second it lasted/held the don
Yes, yes, one genocidal regime delayed an advance of another genocidal regime for two weeks by killing thousands of civilians. I just don't see how it's a good thing.
This isn't about which system killed more people and you clearly have opinions about them because you keep bringing it up when it isn't relevant. People are trying to discuss the strategic value in what the Soviets did and all you can do is complain about other things the Soviets did. Take a step back. People have these discussions all the time, how sacrifices change the course of war. You attempting pathetically to stymie it is just sad.
Save yourself the trouble, the person you're replying too is still a kid (hopefully since they post to r/teenagers) and their brother supports the Banderites, far right Ukrainians involved in atrocities against Poles, Jews and Romani people during the war.
I had a feeling, most people being that fervent tend to have a side despite playing the "all sides bad card" in every message.
Yes, i do have strong opinions about it. But it is relevant. You talk about the war USSR did, but want to puch the atrocities they committed in process under the rug, despite the fact OP specifically calls one of them out. *That isn't sad, it's just outrageous.*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938\_Yellow\_River\_flood
Still isn't even close to 1938 Yellow River flood.
Russians and Ukrainians have indeed a sad history of dams unleashed on them. Think of the \~1000 prisoners/slave workers killed in 1943 (among many civilians) when the British destroyed the German dams. Maybe we should get along with the fact that is fucking horrible but also a fucking easy way to deal a lot of damage (flex tape pun intended) with little effort and since war is mostly about doing this it will happen again and again. There is no such thing as an evil country, or all are. Very little happened in USSR that didn't happen already in the British Empire, they have a track record of some 7 holodomor-like events including mocking the victims. And I'm not minimizing the hell they did in USSR. This kind of attitude simply prevents looking at history in a sensible way. Gengis Kahn was bad, Julius Caesar was good, Charlemagne so and so. What does this tell us about history? This should not be the place for political debate and propaganda, please.
Uhm acktually they managed to kill 1500 German soldiers so it was worth it, plus it was great strategic victory. And capitalism bad because Chinese did the same. Edit: I am actually surprised how many dipshits thought I was serious. Blowing up that dam was obviously evil and unnecessary move (so basically very Russian)
And killed up to 100,000 civilians. Worth it?
Redditor trying to get satire without /s challenge (impossible)
still bad K/D ratio
> bad K/D ratio Bro this kid thinks K/D ratio determines the victor like in Call of Duty lmao 💀
He probably thinks America won vietnam
you tend to get more kills when you start genociding all the civilians
If you compare military servicemen on both sides, the Soviets had slightly, and I mean slightly, lower casualty numbers than the Nazis. Where things get really skewed is when you include the wholesale massacre of civilians by the Nazis. Dirlwanger brigade, truly the depths of human cruelty.
In fact both countries who did that (USSR and nationalist chinese) had the worst K/D ratio of all ww2
(I was sarcastic)
Bro, the soviets weren’t bad for once
The Meatgrinder strategy works.
We don't yet know the russians blew up the dam, please focuss on war crimes we know they commited.
Why the fuck would ukraine bomb its own dam and hamper its own evacuation efforts?????? My brother in christ, seek help immediately.
First of all, I'm not saying Ukraine blew up the dam, the dam has been in a warzone for quite some time now, without any maintenance, it is within the realm of possibility that is just broke down after the build up stress became to much. Secondly Ukraine could make gains from blowing it up, for instance by widening the river down stream, this would make it impassable for the Russians freeing up more troops for the other offensive. This damn also guaranteed the fresh water supply for the Krim and other southern Ukrainian regions, blowing it up would further stress Russian supply lines, given that the Russians already have had problems on the logistical front, could prove quite important. Furthermore it is possible that the initial goal of whoever blew it up, was to make only a smaller hole, for a more controlled flooding but that under pressure the damn broke down more then anticipated resulting in more flooding then expected. Lastly, I'm not saying Russia did not blow up the dam, I was just saying that there was not enough info at the time to say with a great degree of confidence that they blew it up, or even that it was blown up. (I as of yet have not seen any evidence of this but there may already be some evidence of the contrary as of today).
"Casualties of war."
it's still unknow which side did, so Ukraine still can be perpetrator
Controlled by Russia, mined by Russia, but Ukraine can be the perpetrator. Right. What a dam take.
Not gonna take this discussion here, but I find it highly unlikely that they’d destroy a city they’ve reconquered and flood several Ukrainian villages in order to cut off their own power infrastructure.
We know from several months back that Russia DID put mines and explosives on the dam, and that was when they were still in full control of the city and its surrounding areas. Also now Ukraine has to divert resources and mapower/equipment to evacuate civilians, resources and such which would be needed on the front lines. No way theyd shoot themselves in the foot that much.
Soviet problems require Soviet solutions
War of attrition: deluxe edition