I just feel like it might be the latter, because the idea that Germany only achieved limited success due to surprise, amphetamines, and Allied incompetence kind of takes away from the fact that the Soviets spent so much effort and so many lives in beating them back halfway to Berlin before the Allies even invaded on the Western front. With the idea that the German army was somehow more competent, professional, whatever, over the French/British/Etc, that adds to the achievement of the Soviets in blunting and then turning back their advance. But the criticisms of the Nazi army, idk, it seems to take away from all of that? Like "lol whatever they were all hopped up on adderall and would have been stopped anyway." idk y'all it just seems weird. I don't know how to take it.

edit: like say it's boxing and you got The Best Boxer and they're beaten by someone else, well, that'd make the latter the Boxer who beat The Best Boxer, but then people come out saying actually they weren't that great etc etc, it detracts from both of them, not just one, idk

    • ssjmarx [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      In fact, if Stalin had invaded Germany in 1937, the whole of WWII could have been prevented.

      Would the Soviets invading Germany not simply have started World War 2 early with everyone ganging up on the communists?

    • Presents [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      And their greatest mistake? Vastly underestimating the Soviet Union

      The Soviets hid their strength. Why? Nobody knows. If the Germans had known their true strength they would have had second thoughts, and might have continued the alliance instead of sneak attacking their only friend in the world. In the only recording we have of Hitler using his normal speaking voice, he talks about the real size of the Red Army being double what the Abwehr estimated.

      They send their factory workers to the frontline as soldiers, and had to constantly rotate them back to the homefront for industrial production.

      Soviets used women but the Germans refused to do so. In fact, Germany ran on a peacetime economy until after Stalingrad. Theaters were open, the bourgeois employed domestic servants, it wasn't a 100% push for victory. Afterwards they did, but it was too little too late. The Soviet strategy of using women as workers and soldiers paid great dividends.

      if Stalin had not been purging people left and right in the late 1930s, Germany would not have stood a chance at all

      If Stalin had not purged them all, they would have overthrown him.

      if Stalin had invaded Germany in 1937, the whole of WWII could have been prevented.

      This is true. However all of Western capitalism would have united to ally with Germany and start a different WWII.

      saved the Soviet Union, and the world from fascism.

      A common misconception, fanned by the Allies, was that goal was to conquer the entire world. In fact the German plan was to conquer the food and oil producing regions of the Soviet Union and then stop. But it's no surprise why the Allies wanted to overstate the threat, it was useful to motivate their populations. Who today even remembers that they wanted to ally with Britain, and considered the war against them a great mistake?

    • AcidSmiley [she/her]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Operation Bagration in the summer of 1944 would see the Red Army executing the perfected art of Deep Battle

      More like Operation Bagratio'd lmao gottem

      :pit::pigmask-parodied: :t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34::t34:

    • Mike_Penis [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      There was some study that showed that on average it took fewer Germans to take a position from the allies than vise versa. They were quite good on the tactical level but completely fucked strategically.

    • BynarsAreOk [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I mentioned this in another thread today, but WWII really was an ideological battle between communism and fascism

      I am not sure how the Japanese going after the US fits this narrative though. Certainly I agree with regards to the European theater, a basic look at the interwar period and the buildup settles that argument, but the pacific war?

      WW2 would be different if Japan decided to just stick with fucking up China and SEA while leaving the US alone. It would have been even worse if they decided to fight the USSR instead.

    • AmericaDelendeEst [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don't disagree with or wish to argue against any of this but like I literally saw people on here saying stuff about how they "only" defeated the French because amphetamines let them work faster than expected in penetrating the Ardennes, etc. I'm not trying to justify that arguement, just saying I saw it and it seems kinda sus to me

      • Presents [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        It's nothing but a cope.

        Weird that the collapse of France still stings 80 years later.