Great Patriotic war myths

06/22/1941 started the Great Patriotic war.

Let's discuss the common anti-soviet and anti-communist myths about this war.

Myths like:


If you can russian this is useful source:

Attached: 2015-08-31_17-00-47_608066.jpg (600x340 462.78 KB, 60.36K)

Other urls found in this thread:миф:пленные_в_лагерядок:литвиненко_были_ли_потери_чрезмерными–Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)миф:генеральное_соглашениеМифы_о_Великой_Отечественной_войне#.D0.9F.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BC.D0.B8.D1.84:_.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.BC.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B4_.D0.B2_.D0.91.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B5

the "stalin locked himself in his room when operation barbarossa occurred" myth and the depiction of soviets being human waving savages throughout the entire war kinda annoy me

first ive heard of this

Attached: 319170f4f8d729515003477a90407cf3b33b820f.jpg (1080x2868 72.2 KB, 3.24M)

These myths are typical for russian libtards

And get destroyed, exterminated, and colonized under the leadership of Adolf "the Volga will be our Mississippi" Hitler?

Attached: generalplan ost.jpeg (964x566, 77.68K)

People legitimately say this shit unironically?

yes, russian liberals unironically say this. they are just like western woketards, but they love west and USA


Attached: b61f3bbcddae68ea57fbc876d2f4c3f501d322351d019f40f990a766ad1a8d87.jpg (514x836, 423.86K)


Also I just had a discussion on the whole "human waves" last night.
If anyone has more information on this, especially books to recommend, I'd love it.

human waves?

Here's a Glantz book on myths and realities of the war. Glantz is the top historian on the Soviet military by a non-Russian because his audience was primarily other NATO generals whose job was to fight the Soviets in World War III and not the general public, so his information needed to be objective and not propaganda. Learn such amazing facts like:

+ Stalin and the Stavka consistently and repeatedly attempting to halt and drive back the German juggernaut from day one!

+ The true "largest tank battle" in history occurred… in 1941!

+ The idea that Stalin was preparing to wage a "preventative war" (thus Hitler's invasion is "self-defense") is totally fuckin' bogus!

+ That Hitler's diversionary invasion of Yugoslavia bought Stalin enough time and prevented Moscow from falling. False! Hitler's Balkan invasion took place during a time in which the Russian roads were still muddied, and he only committed a small portion of his force to the Balkan.

+ Zhukov lied after Stalin died! Stalin's "Broad Front" strategy – in which offensive operations are carried out along multiple axes until a shift in strategy in 1944 – had Zhukov's support at the time, although he claimed he did not support it later in his memoirs. Zhukov is officially fucking cancelled everybody!

+ And many more!

Attached: 2009web_russians-vote-for-stalin_1920x1080.jpg (1920x1080, 298.84K)

Thank you very much for the book.

I agree that most of these myths are bullshit, but some soviet POWs were actually sent to labor camps after their liberation because of the SMERSH program. However, most stayed in the camps for 2 years maximum usually because it took time for their profiles to be checked, and if there was no counter-revolutionary activity there, they were set free. Most of you already know this im guessing, but maybe some don't.

That's true. They were sent to "filtration camps". But I don't think it took 2 years to check their profiles.
More than 95% of them were found innocent.миф:пленные_в_лагеря

Attached: IMG_20190622_222549_106.JPG (600x451, 72.46K)

That last one makes you sound like an incel, stop that shit unless you want no one to take communists seriously

"The thing is
Russia’s everything-wave tactics worked
Millions of soldiers died but it turns out that suicidal infantry charges backed by massive tank advances worked against an army whose main issue was its abysmal supply situation
(Of course had Stalin not murdered half his army commanders in a paranoid fit maybe the Russians wouldn’t have been immediately pushed back to the point where these insane tactics were all they had left)"

Denying the claim that russians systemically raped millions of german women makes someone sound like an incel? What?

A lot of those soviet soldiers probably died as virgins. Go fuck yourself.

I'm not saying it was systematic rape. I'm not saying 2 million women were raped in Berlin alone (anticommunists say this shit all the time). But I don't find it that hard to believe 2 million german women were raped overall as the soviets made their way into Germany. That still is probably way less than the soviet women raped by germans.

you are either Zig Forumsyp or woke brainlet

I like to shit on incels just as much as the next guy, but what does that have to do with anything here?
Do you selectively support nazi propaganda?

Human wave propaganda mostly came later through western novels and movies, don't buy into it.

Oh, so rather than agreeing with the claim of 2 million german women were raped after berlin was taken, a frequent anti-communist claim, you instead decide to pull other numbers out of your ass to justify and legitimize anti-communist propaganda.

Legitimately go fuck yourself.док:литвиненко_были_ли_потери_чрезмерными

This is myth mostly created thanks to Viktor Astafyev who said that soviet/german loss ratio was 10:1. But in reality it was 1,3:1. This "nas mnogo" myth is just russophobian cliche.

I really can't wait until they start saying this catch-all bullshit word in the next American election.

This book sums up all the common myths about the Great patriotic war. Unfortunately, it is in russian. It is called "Velikaya obolgannaya voyna".

No? Look I don't understand why you people find it so hard to believe that soldiers rape. It has happened thousands of times in our history and will continue happening as long as wars exist.
This isn't even about communism, it's about war. All armies occupying enemy territory commit atrocities. Soviets included. Stop this retarded rape-denial which only makes us look like deranged psychopaths.

"Human wave" is a bit of misnomer, but Soviet tactics did operate a lot like World War I because of a lack of radios, mainly.

Military tactics on the battlefield boils down to "fire and movement" basically, if you've ever played a video game. One group shoots while the other moves, and they take turns. The Soviets often used their beyond-line-of-sight weapons to provide the covering fire. Typically this meant massed artillery.

Where the Soviets really innovated was in "Deep Battle," which is complicated but it was about reinforcing success basically. A unit that broke through somewhere or did well would be rewarded with reserves while units that suffered would not, and even have units pulled out and transferred over to the units that did well.

Early in the war, it was typical for officers to lead from the front, because that was considered to be more communist. The Soviet Army shifted though because a lot of officers were getting killed that way. Oh well it was worth a try.

Attached: shutterstock.jpg (450x358, 54.63K)

I can't believe my post got screencapped and is being used still

Mostly those who had little backing to any claims. Part of the reason for this was that soviet POWs who did help the Nazis tried to hide among the rest of the POW populace, and the Western allies let it happen.

How? there was no systematic rape, and certainly not even close to 2 million.

No one is denying rape occurred you retard. It didn't happen En Masse. The only one looking like a deranged psycho is you.

Lmao ok nigger. You realize 2 million raped women isn't that of an unbelievable statistic, considering the amount of soviets.

>we have to #respectwomen by believing the literal nazi propaganda that the russians were raping women en masse, because soviets were just such rapist subhumans, just as long as we make sure we get to their numbers by the right ways

red liberals are a plague

Attached: 252c5e8e6cb10da7ae9d24a6ee4b8c632e97a3c353e4eb724682a497f8182ee2.png (810x367, 123.85K)

See pic 1

There is no evidence of Mass rape. If anything even the anti-soviet book written by Ex-Nazi Marta Hiller/Anonyma was dismissive of its extent, stating that "If the Russians did with us, what we were doing with them, soon no German would survive"

Read the book Victims, Victors: From Nazi Occupation to the Conquest of Germany as seen by a Red Army Soldier; by Roman Kravchenko-Berezhnoy

Here is an excerpt from a review of the book by T. Kunikov:

"As much as some like to think that the Red Army was a barbaric 'horde' encouraged from Moscow to plunder and rape the Germans, that popular image does not match with the author's experience. The author did see Soviet vandalism but also witnessed an execution of a Red Army man charged with looting. He also describes how he translated for a German woman who stated that she had been gang raped. The author is certain that she indeed was raped by soldiers of his own army, but he cannot testify about a rape spree. He does not dispute such a spree outright. He simply can't provide any personal evidence to support that image."

"As with other incidents like looting, rapes occurred sporadically and at an individual's initiative, not as part of any Red Army policy. One has to keep in mind that war is war and no one involved in a war comes out with clean hands. While this doesn't justify what the Red Army did, and nothing should, it does put it into perspective and into context. One should recall that everyone was drafted, from the boys that just turned 17 to hardened criminals who were being given a second chance."

A good general debunk

Pic 2 is incomplete Here is the original full version

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x4115, 5.5M)

Nice. But Akarlin is unfortunately rightard

Oh I know Akarlin is anti-soviet… which makes this debunk all the more credible to send to wehraboos and Zig Forumsyps.

Do you have any evidence that Akarlin is anti-soviet? It'd be nice to use as a resource.

Attached: stalin.jpeg (991x1600, 322.34K)

It's somewhere on his blog. He's a Russian Nationalist.

Are you suggesting this didnt happen? lol

Not only was it a non aggression pact, It was a military alliance as well as a deal for the Soviet to be the main material suppliers for the Nazis. There were also joint NKVD-Gestapo meetings held in occupied Poland to coordinate how to control their respective areas.

Attached: commies and nazis.webm (640x360, 2.91M)–Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk–Soviet_Credit_Agreement_(1939)–Soviet_Commercial_Agreement_(1940)

Attached: 2000px-Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg.png (800x533 209.48 KB, 116.57K)

Debunked rubbish.
Also debunkedмиф:генеральное_соглашение

If you scroll down to the Afterword of this nationstates factbook on Lend Lease, you'll see the information of Soviet 'trade'. Not only was it miniscule compared to what Germany received from the West, but also did little to benefit Germany, as it was nothing but raw materials requiring processing:

There are entire books written debunking this myth

Wikipedia is your source? Laughable.

OMG Stalin was at total bitch went the Germans invaded. He pooped his pants and hid out in his Dacha for, like, a week. Why people continue to defend this pussy retard is beyond me.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, but seeing as you're now totally making shit up I feel obligated.
Says the dumbass posting info shared on a browser game, lmao.
See, here's where you're outright lying. The material sent to Germany during 1940-1941 was substantial. Pic related.

Attached: tooze_321.png (562x424, 34.54K)

No, it was not.

Looking through them, only one of the sources is from the nation-states website.

Attached: 837646d80da001aa2fd2f9b8a1bfc3fe939ee5d2.jpg (960x700, 62.83K)

- In 1933, USSR tried to sign a Pacific pact with Britain and USA to put a brake to Japanese imperialism, they declined.
- In late 1933, the Soviet government proposed an "Eastern pact", which was to be signed by several countries in opposition to Germany
- In 1936 the Soviet government proposed collective action to stop German aggression, the allies ignored it.
- In October 1937 at the Brussels Conference, USA and Britain rejected the Soviet proposal for the League of Nations to apply sanctions on Japan, after they had invaded China.
- In 1938, the Soviet government prepared to intervene militarily in Czechoslovakia should they decide to fight Germany. Their government refused and the allies signed the Munich pact, giving Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
- In April 1939, Soviets proposed another military coalition against Nazi Germany in the event of an aggression in Eastern Europe
- The Soviets did one last attempt in July 1939, and proposed a military coalition with a plan laid out by Shaposhnikov to deploy 136 divisions to fight Nazi Germany, which the Polish government refused.

And this is just a small part of a long list. The USSR is the only country that actively tried to prevent WWII. After 8 years of disappointment, Litvinov resigned and was replaced by Molotov, and the Soviet government terminated its collective security policy and began focusing on strengthening its borders. The western governments made their bed and hoped Hitler would focus on destroying communism. Stalin wasn't having it so he signed the M-R pact, which put an obstacle in front of the western imperialists and bought the USSR time

Attached: litvinov.jpg (653x977, 370.65K)

It didn't buy them much time. One could just a easily say it bought Hitler time.

They were sent to filtration camps to separate the actual traitors and collaborators from the regular prisoner. The allies did this as well. They weren't sent to fucking gulags for "betraying the motherland with surrender" or some shit like liberal propagandists claim.

Not just officers, but all party members were encouraged to take the lead and motivate their comrades to fight in even the worst situations. It was absolutely critical in maintaining morale and to make the German advance as bitter as it possibly could be, but it had one of the worst long-term effects of the war, even if that attitude only lasted for half of it. The loss of so many devoted communists was devastating to the party.


Yes it was. It is, by

Attached: 1505586098943.png (1502x864, 86.88K)


youre the one trynig to pretend the USSR and Nazi Germany didnt invade Poland together in a joing action and that the USSR wasnt the main material supplier for the Nazi war machine. The Soviet Union was an axis power and only fought against Germany after they got "kicked out" of that group when Germany invaded them.

The realpolitik reason is clearly that Stalin thought Hitler and the western powers would get involved in a prolonged war like in WW1 and they would both destroy themselves and make it easy for him to sweep into Europe. He made a Faustian deal with the devil and payed for it.

Cry harder, bitch nigga. And fuck Poland.

Attached: 1546271024496.png (1534x862, 87.25K)


You do realize this is the same line of reasoning stormfag deniers make when they try to paint Hitler as a good guy because his original plan was to simply ship all the jews out to Madagascar before he settled on mass murdering them, right?

They didn't it's literally pointed out in my sources, and is a well known fact that the USSR entered Poland after it was no longer a state as its government had fled. The Polish military command ordered its troops to not fight the soviets and the same goes for the Red Army. Poland's allies Estonia, who had a pact with it to go to war with the USSR should it attack, did NOT engage soviet troops or declare war. Your claims are quite transparent.
Because the main supplier was the West. The supplies in 1940 was not even 50% of German industrial production over-all, and 50% of that production was a tiny amount of wheat that wouldn't feed the German army for more than a month.
The only vaguely intelligent thing you've said all thread.
No, make it easy for communist movements to actually rise up. If you actually paid attention to history and not sucked up propaganda you'd have noticed that.
Except that he was literally driven to this because of the West's adamant refusal to make anti-fascist pacts and its support of Germany.

A bloo bloo bloo. Shame not enough French tards died, and BEF escaped.

your source is a shitty blogpost with deadlinks.

No they werent. The main supplier was the Soviets.

Or he could have just not agreed to be Germanys main material supplier, refused to not only enter into a non agression pact with them, but outright join the Axis side by invading Poland together with them. Britain and France stood up to Germany, The Soviets joined in with him and tried to play a Machiavellian game of using him for their own purposes, and it blew up in their faces and resulted in mass slaughter and near total annihilation of them. And some 80 years later, leftist are so retarded that they not only praise this decision as good, but as being morally commendable

No it wasn't.
Nope, its an active pointing out of the international political situation that led to the German-Soviet Pact being signed.
Join forces with Hitler
Nope, the Red Army and Wehrmacht never allied or worked together.
The USSR supplied, at most, 50% of over-all supplies for Germany for the year 1940, the majority of this delivery was food.
That thesis is not accepted as legitimate by anyone who studies history and isn't outright trying to warp history.
This has been covered repeatedly in the thread

Attached: Joseph Goebbels award.jpg (1132x890, 574.39K)

except for that time they invaded Poland together.–Soviet_military_parade_in_Brest-Litovsk

The links aren't dead at all. I've checked all of them. Moreover I posted
more than just a blogpost you shilling little faggot.

2 Historical books on this very subject, one of which is written by famed and acclaimed historian.

2 Blog posts using primary sources

2 different wiki posts ALSO with primary sourcesмиф:генеральное_соглашениеМифы_о_Великой_Отечественной_войне#.D0.9F.D0.BE.D0.B4.D0.BC.D0.B8.D1.84:_.D1.81.D0.BE.D0.B2.D0.BC.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D0.BF.D0.B0.D1.80.D0.B0.D0.B4_.D0.B2_.D0.91.D1.80.D0.B5.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B5

And a nationstates factbook, with direct citations, quotations and statistics backed by primary and secondary sources.

You have provided some contextless photos (or context that you've manipulated
And 3 biased wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, dimwit.

Moreover, others have also provided primary and secondary sources as well.

Attached: wikipedia - instead of a brain.jpg (623x815, 76.25K)

Youre pathetic. It seems the reality that the Soviets entered into not only a non agression pact with Germany, but were also their main material suppliers as well as invaded Poland with them really vexes you. And it should since this completely demolishes the fake moral high ground leftist try to occupy.

Literally debunked repeatedly in-thread.
Brest Litovsk was the passing of Brest from German hands to Soviet hands. The Red Army did not fight in Poland and entered after Poland no longer existed as a state.

That shitty video of yours does not demonstrate a single instance of German and Soviet troops marching together. Having Officers meet in the city is not a crime when by agreement, they have to meet with you to officiate the passing of the city from Germany to the USSR.

In fact the clip you posted is from the Baltic-funded shit-show called "The Soviet Story" Which was debunked by the book "The Soviet Story: Механизм Лжи", the author of which I actually linked previously with another of his books that went over the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact specifically.

You're attacking the source yet not providing an argument or actual sources in return. YOU are pathetic.
Except that's not it at all.
What reality is this? The one in your head?
Your degrading grammar and retarded remarks indicate that if anyone is being vexed, it is you.

Attached: hold all this projection.jpg (600x800, 82.32K)

Is Britain and France constantly capitulating to Germany taking territories and building up its military, allowing the companies within it's border to finance and supply the Nazi's during their development, and refusing to enter into an alliance with the USSR to prevent German expansion (even going as far to plan to bomb USSR oil fields instead if a war broke out) "Standing up to Germany" now?

The Soviets entered Poland weeks after Germany entered and did so to both retake land Poland had stolen from the Byelorussian SSR earlier during the civil war and to hold territory that would have otherwise gone directly to Germany otherwise. The former is reason enough tbh.

Right, somehow, despite them only supplying the Germans for 1 year and barely making up 50% of what Germany got, and ignoring how Western companies like Standard Oil gave Germany a discount in buying their oil and actively supported the German Reich up til 1942 when the Germans were technically at war with the USA.
The first is untrue as pointed out repeatedly, the Third is outright untrue, they never sided with the Axis or invaded Poland.
As for the Non-aggression pact.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression pact was only signed after it was blatantly clear that the west would not act until Hitler invaded a west friendly power and was otherwise quite willing to be friendly with fascists. The British/French hoped instead that Hitler would invade Russia and take out the USSR which they themselves had invaded and tried to destroy 20 years earlier during the Revolution – the NAP was Russia's way of avoiding this since they clearly weren't ready to face the German army. An unhappy compromise, yes, but certainly not an alliance and certainly not their primary choice.

Attached: comissar looks.jpg (241x232, 12.84K)

LOL what?
First, you have the 'phony war'. In which French, British armies waited just on west side of the Rhine river without doing anything for 8 months, as German army as busy conquering and repressing Poland. Crazy, really, especially in the light of the fact that Germany's industrial heartland, Rhineland is just to the east of this river. take it over, and you cripple a massive segment of German industry. Hell they could have done this far earlier since it was on the 7th of March, 1936 that German troops marched into the Rhineland and violated the Versailles Treaty they had signed. The British and French didn't just ignore this but actually met (such as the British Cabinet meeting on 11 March 1936) before deciding not to do anything because they feared that they would have to rely on the USSR and thus Germany would be "Bolshevized". In other words they let the biggest military conflict in the world occur because they preferred "letting loose another great war" over the POSSIBILITY of a communist Germany. Moreover they argue over sending a warning to Hitler and using economic sanctions… but as we know this doesn't happen and its hand-waved aside.
Even if one waves aside the Versailles treaty for being over 15 years old, in 1925 the Locarno Pact was signed following the European peace conference held in Switzerland. It reaffirmed national boundaries decided by the Treaty of Versailles, approved the German entry into the League of Nations and initiated something nick-named the “spirit of Locarno” symbolizing hopes for an era of European peace. By 1930 German Foreign Minister Gustav Stresemann had negotiated the removal of the last Allied troops in the demilitarized Rhineland. The Germans of course had their own secretive military developments but none were open or directly violated the Versailles Treaty or the Locarno Pact like the events of 1936.

The Germans themselves confirmed that the French alone would have been able to halt and reverse the Germans had they decided to act.
"The forty-eight hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-racking in my life. If the French had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs, for the military resources at our disposal would have been wholly inadequate for even moderate resistance." Quoted in "What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy" by Zachary Shore, 2003

But 'allies' didn't do anything - they didn't even do any military operations. They just waited until Germany repressed Poland and ferried over all their military units and prepared and put them into position to attack France. There is no kind of explicable logic for this kind of thing in warfare. The only possibility is that they were expecting and waiting for Nazi Germany to attack USSR.

The British Royal Family was all but public in their support of the Nazi regime. Even if one dismisses the nazi salute photographs one cannot deny their role in supporting Germany. Anti-semitic sympathies, letters of correspondence, and generally being supportive:

That's ignoring how Britain repeatedly let Hitler get his hands on Czechoslovakia and Austria.

In 1939 on the verge of a socialist majority in parliament the French Government, fearful of its position and political and international failings, decided on a universal ban on all communist and socialist affiliated parties and individuals, with over 1500 being imprisoned and 300 executed in the next 2 months
In otherwords, France was busy repressing communists rather than fighting Hitler.

Attached: Royal Heillnesses.jpg (1920x2445, 914.35K)

Imagine thinking that France's defensive war strategy was because they were pro-nazi lamo.

They literally did nothing to prevent Hitler and Germany from gaining power. France and Britain by the Versailles pact had every right to invade Germany the moment they placed troops in the Rhineland in 1936. Moreover, when Hitler began making demands for Czechoslovakia after Anschluss with Austria, they STILL did nothing. Even when Germany attacked Poland, Britain and France did nothing for months until Germany turned around and began thoroughly beating them into submission, despite the French and British having alliances with Poland that demanded they take action against threats. Hell Poland's pact with Britain involved defense from Germany AND the USSR. Yet Britain/France only declared war on Germany and not the USSR.

And its 'LMAO' or if you're lazy 'lmao', an acronym for Laughing My Ass Off. What the fuck even is lamo supposed to be?

Yeah i wonder why a country that had lost millions of men in WWI weren't really eager to march across the Rhineland to crush what they just saw another European Right Wing Leader. Really boggles the mind tbh.
What the fuck should they have done? Yeet'ed over the Rhein with their shitty, unprepared army? The BEF wasn't even properly deployed until like November. Also France's whole strat relied on the Maginot what the fuck could they have done? Also nobody expected Poland to fall that fast, Blitzkrieg stunned the entire world.
As for Poland, lowkey Churchill wanted to provide resources to Finland during the Winter War but his intervention in Norway occured after the armistice between the two countries.

Calm down dear.

1) Why did Poland not refuse to allow the Soviets entrance to their country when the Soviet consulate sent them a request to let the Red Army in?

2) Why did Poland'd government issue decrees (mirrored by the Red Army command) to NOT fire on the Red Army? Why did it not rescind them if it was still viable on Sept 28th?

3) Why did Poland not declare war on the USSR as well? Why did it's allies (treatied to come to Poland's aid in the event off a Polish-Soviet war, NOT in a Polish-German one)

Lastly the international establishment, including anti-soviet, imperialist Churchill did not consider it an invasion despite the fact that they were howling in feigned 'outrage in Finland that very same year.

So then France DID find Hitler likeable then? Moreover, the French had Britain and they would hardly care about throwing soldiers into war again, especially when Germany had essentially no military to speak of and thus there would be no war. I literally cited primary sources on that.
Followed up on their promises as allies of Poland and declared war on Germany and attacked. They essentially betrayed their alliance with Poland.
Which they did nothing to prepare during the nearly 8 months of the Phony war. Moreover the German military at the time was weaker than France or Britain. The several months they did not act after the Polish invasion actually let Germany increase strength.
Germany beat the French-British forces through sheer tactics, not superior arms or numbers.
They had dozens of months and plenty of Polish officers to prepare counter tactics. Not to mention that it is a well known facct that had Britain acted and attacked the German flank during the Battle of France, the German army would have collapsed due to having overstretched their supply lines.

You are making excuses for fascism and the aiding and abetting of fascism.

dear yourself idiot.

Right imma gonna level with you user, you don't know fucking shit about geopolitics or what actually happened in the run-up and during WWII.
No you are just being dense.

Except that unlike you I actually provided sources and an actual argument past "muh supplies" and "muh pact alliance" and "Muh Poland".

YOU have shown absolute ignorance in geopolitics of the era.
No, not really. It's a well known fact that the West supported Hitler for a while as an anti-soviet bludgeon. The fact that this backfired on them only indicates their own arrogance.

Your consistent inability to address basic arguments of mine with anything more than denial is hilarious and your arrogance leads me to believe that you are either a masterful troll or an ideologue with cognitive dissonance.

Attached: laughing red army.png (631x395, 356.13K)

French literally went on the offensive and crossed the German border before retreating back to where it started

user, the fact that you think that the west could actively counter Blitzkrieg a few months after its introduction into international warfare because they had a few polish officers is just something else. I have never seen someone pretend they know so much about WWII yet believe in something that stupid.

THey ran a few raids. The Entire French doctrine was based on hardcore defence. De Gaulle wanted to launch into Germany with the rather impressive French armoured corps but the French general staff wanted to build-up in defence.

Blitzkrieg was not introduced in 1939
Since you love wikipedia so much actually read the wiki articles then

The French and British Forces were more than enough to counter the Germans if they actually took decent action. Hell Poland alone had one of the largest armies in Europe at over 3 million men. It was the incompetence and cowardice of the Polish officers that allowed the Germans to ravage them.
The representative of the French army at the Polish General Staff on September 10 reported to Paris that “complete chaos reigns here. The main Polish command has almost no contact with the belligerent armies and large units … It has absolutely no information about the advancement of the enemy, and even the position of his own troops is very incompletely informed or not informed at all. The General Staff broke up into two parts … The Polish army itself was defeated in the first few days "

You're really jumping those mental hoops

Yet they could have done much more. To try and excuse their inactivity with "DEFENSHIV DUCTRIN" is to be willfully ingorant. ignorant
Which proves the point, the French, rather than actively support Poland and thus bring around a proper counter to German aggression let Poland and its cowardly, incompetent military staff lose the country to the Germans, and simply waiting for 8 months while the Germans gathered the strength to destroy France.
Also for all theri "defensive build up" they failed to create a multi-tier defensive line or even properly prepare for the possibility of a breach. You're just making excuses… again.

You wanna know why this was the case: ==MOTHERFUCKING BLITZKRIEG YOU ABSOLUTE FUCKING MONGOLOID==. The entire doctrine was designed to discombobulate an enemy
Like what, what could they have done to Save Poland in the 1 month and 5 days that it fought for in WWII? If you say shit like reenforce them at Danzig I swear fucking down I will track you down and slap you across the face with a very heavy fish.
Also saying "well it existed before" is not a fucking argument when nobody had actually had to deal with it properly in a fullboided invasion. There's a reason that the allies nor the comintern couldn't properly counter it until 1943 (the Soviets with their Deep Operations and the Allies with their focus on combined arms & especially used of anti-tank units within infantry divisions). If it took them so long, how the fuck do you think the French and BEF could implement an active and effective countermeasure in the period of the Phony war. You are showing a complete delusion in how warfare actually works.
They did actually, the issue was Belgium. You see Belgium before the remilitarisation of the Rhineland was in a defensive pact with France. The idea was that the Maginot would be the stalwart of the south while an anglo-french force would hold the Meuse. It would have worked if the Beligum hadn't left their alliance with the French following the remilitarisation of the Rheinland. But they did, so when Fall Gelb came they had to hurriedly reach the Meuse, they failed, teh Germans counterattacked through the Ardennes (which everyone assumed was unbreachable) and the rest is history. It's a piece of piss to say "well that was stupid" in hindsight, but it was how warfare was fought. You are shitting from an armchair in the 21st century, like fuck you could have done better in a war room in the 30s.
Also De Gaulle could have launched his offensive, if France had spent the last 6-8 years preparing for such a war. But it fucking didn't, because that was how war was fought and they had a conservative high command. You get what you are given, this isn't HoIII custom set-up.
You are adhering to airchair generaling of the highest degree and honestly it's fucking Wehrboo tier.

Regardless, none of this, NONE OF THIS, is proof the French high command let Poland die because they were pro-nazi. God you're deluded.

And you ignored the wikipedia pages, good job, now you're just flying solo. LOL
The entire 'doctrine' was never actually defined you skim-reading middle-school-tier dolt.
Continued the progress made in the Saar offensive, or better yet, invaded and took out the Rhineland (literally on the French border) and thus crippled German military industrial production and actual military objects.
Uhuh, sure marine.
Except it is when Britain was also dabbling in this shit and at the very least could have come up with even a simple counter-strategy like multi-tiered defensive lines, which is exactly what stopped the German assault on the USSR, except that since the Germans were far weaker suring the battle of France, this would have been no issue.
The USSR countered it in the Winter of 1941 when they stopped the German offensive at Moscow and began pushing them back. Blitzkrieg stopped being part of the actual war 4 months after June 22nd when Operation Barbarossa ended and the Germans settled in for the long slog, something France and Britian could have done much earlier and far easier if they actually acted when Germany wasn't amped up on the industrial resources of all Europe.
No I'm showing actual understanding of the German Army at the time. The German Army was well organized and well commanded but its resources were extremely limited. The Panzer II was the most common tank in their inventory for a while. The Brits and French outright outclassed their armored units. Hell the Brits and French actually helped the Germans get better tanks by selling them Czechoslovakia, which thus gave them hundreds of top of the line light tanks, and one of the best industrial factories of Europe.
Again, hitting the Rhineland, continueing the Saar offensive, outright fucking taking control of the Polish army if they had to.
The French KNEW that Belgium would be the likely corridor for German attack, yet they did't even makesure the Belgians had the backbone to keep up their side of the alliance, mostly because they lacked the back-bone to keep up their own alliance with Poland.
Would have, would have. WW-2 would have never happened if France and Britain and the League of Nations listened the multiple suggestions of the USSR and created a collective security system to prevent European conflict. Or, if you're want to ignore the USSR's efforts, then WW-2 would have never happened if France and Britain upheld the demands of the Versailles and Locarno Treaties and gave a strong response to Germany's attempt to remilitarize the Rhineland in 1936.
Yes the rest is history, such as the fact that Germany critically over-stretched its supply lines to the point that a simple French or British strike, even a small one would have led to the encirclement of a large portion of German forces. The Brits certainly had the forces to spare, but the tactical idiocies of both France and Britain let Germany drive the situation into the Dunkirk Scandal.
And you're not?
Even despite the defensive system of the French forces because as YOU admitted, their armored units were no joke and would over-power the German ones, especially since they were occupied in Poland already.
A competent military should be able to react and adapt. The French had 8 months to do so, but instead rejected De Gaulle and abandoned the Saar offensive and never even considered the Rhineland.
This coming from the fucker whining about Poland and the MOlotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

What a strawman, you've really outdone yourself. The claim was that France had demonstrated right-wing sympathies and support through its geopolitical actions of the 1930s. The claim YOU made was never suggested, YOU are deluded.

Honestly I would reply to this, but I don't know where to start. Seriously, I am smashing my head against a wall trying to work out how the fuck you can understand so little about military strategy while pretending to know so much. Congrats, you win, you have defeated me with an attrition of fucking ignorance. Go have a wank or something.

Or, or, or, OR maybe YOU need to stop hysterically wanting to be right and actually read carefully. You have repeatedly ignored sources and posts and cherrypicked.
The irony of your words is astounding.
like I am sure you will when you go to whatever board or subreddit you came from to go get your ego stroked. M8. The points and statements brought up are not some revisionism. These are historically accepted facts backed by actual sources… meanwhile you have failed to provide even a single quote or source that wasn't some wikipedia shill article. Even when we pandered to your pathetic wikipedia fetish you ignored it because wikipedia didn't support your attempt to Justify the pathetic actions during the Phony War.

With that kind of argument… how dare you critisize Stalin and his Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, like fuck you could have done better.

Your utter hypocrisy throughout this thread is mind-boggling.

Good, you really should stop before Ismail gets wind of this thread and REALLY starts drubbing you.

Where did I do that?

The fuck are you on about?

Looking back in Archives, you sound exactly like that salty faggot who posted on the "Stalin Crimes" thread here and made a similar thread in Zig Forums. Both threads had those 'crimes' taken to fucking pieces. Whether you're that poster or not, just go to >>>Zig Forums where nonsensical garbage like yours is tolerated and loved. You can circlejerk there.

You ain't the sharpest tool in the shed are ya.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1792x409, 58K)

Do you have short-term memory loss disorders? This entire fucking chain of arguments began with the following retarded posts:


So you're saying that you just suddenly began posting about France completely unconnected to all this?

As mentioned, the first 2 posts about "muh Molotov-Ribbentrop" and "Muh Poland" use 3 sources, all being wikipedia and a single clip from an anti-soviet documentary.

Neither are you apparently since you apparently decided to butt in on a conversation and try and virtue-signal for France without looking into the context of the thread…

I assumed you were leaving judging by

So are you going or do you need a ban to leave a thread you clearly dislike

Attached: making onesself mad angery thread dislike.jpg (500x504, 29.46K)

Fucking kjek, is this why you have been such a raging faggot?

Imagine crying to the mods for a ban. God I hate nuleftypol.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1168x375, 56.19K)

Could it actually be that the loss of so many dedicated party members was a major cause of the rise of revisionism and capitalist roaders after Stalin?

Attached: nikita.jpg (517x700, 331.43K)

No, but apparently you've been one all for naught since you never bothered to look at the context of the posts and so been raging in defense of France for literally no reason.
I'm not, just asking when you're gonna leave since you've announced the intent to, and have brought nothing of any real substance except salt.
No sources at all (not even wikipedia since you're not even connected to that moron) and half-assed excuses for arguments. What was the plan here? Just shit-post in this thread with some strange need to defend France when it was barely a factor in the original arguments (that you fucking ignored)? What was the point then? You're defending and attacking a strawman of your own creation, how the fuck do you want people to react? Just nod and agree with you?

Attached: comedy double take eh.jpg (1221x1792, 428.08K)

Who knows? To repost an interesting response by a user:

It is to be noted that in 1936-37 The Great Terror is actually called the Yezhovschina, because it was YEZHOV who was to blame for that period and NOT Stalin who had been deceived by Yezhov, (who was then court-martialed and executed for his crimes and the prisoners he unjustly imprisoned released as soon as possible). The argument that the West makes is that Stalin was a psychotic mass murderer who wantonly slaughtered millions of his citizens. The reality is that he made choices directly pertaining to the future of socialism, and made those choices in response to stimuli happening at the time. Communists often will argue about his ideology and if what he did was really the correct interpretation of Marx and Lenin. As a communist I cannot accept any criticism of Stalin's work without verifying all primary data pertaining to the question under debate and without considering all versions of facts and events, in particular the version given by the Bolshevik leadership. The civil war had only ended a few years prior, with thousands of White Guard Russians dying in defense of the tsar. The Western Powers had rendered assistance to the Whites under in the form of 250,000 troops spread across large portions of Russia. Internally spies sabotaged the limited industrial heart of the country. Truth and trust were in short supply. The assistance provided to White Russian forces weighed heavily on the minds of the comintern leaders throughout the 20s and 30s, especially the idea of capitalist encirclement, and especially to Stalin who warned of external and internal threats to the country. Additionally, fascism was swiftly on the rise, Hitler was making no bones about his expansionist plans. One of the big things that precipitated the Russian Revolution was military defeats by the Tsarist government. Its not too difficult to see why Stalin was so worried that the revolution could be overthrown, especially considering Japans imperialist pushing in Manchuria and the rise of fascism. External threats were as much a concern as internal ones. Stalin and the upper comintern leadership therefore decided to eliminate internal and external threats that would provide a "fifth column" to the enemies invading the Soviet Union. Less a desire to murder randomly to instill terror, and more a desire to prepare the country for war. Most modern interpretations of the Great Terror believe that it was initiated at the top, to deal with close and obvious threats, but then spiraled out of control due to paranoia in Soviet society. Another thing to realize is that the Soviet Union was a vast vast entity made up of republics. Abuses of human rights thus can be attributed to local implementation. Pointing out the foreign threat does not negate the importance of ideology or Stalin's personality, but it remains an important factor in what happened. As for collectivization. It was a dual implemented policy along with industrialization. Pretty much the entire party leadership, as well as almost every Communist and non-Communist engineers and technical specialists agreed that industrialization was important. Lack of industrialization had cost Russia dearly in WW-1 against Germany, and contributed greatly to the military defeats suffered by the Tsar. Thus the dual policies of attempting to grow the agricultural and industrial output of the nation became matters of urgent national importance.

I was raging at your ignorance, claiming that France could magically counter blitzkrieg because polish officers experienced it for like what, 3 weeks? Fucking hell.

That was why you were so assblasted? Holy shit motherfucker, can you read more carefully, or at the very fucking least check the context?!

My point wasn't what you said at all. I just mentioned that the French and British didn't act on German aggression throughout the 1930s, despite them easily able to suppress and stop them at the time. Even in 1939 the French had enough power that they could have been able to take down Germany fairly easily since the Germans would have to turn their forces around and face France while still mopping up the Poles, in other words a two front war, for which Germany was unprepared for at the time. They let that advantage pass and didn't actively do much for 8 months. Rather than prepare some attempted counters against Blitzkrieg or take the initiative ad De Gaulle wanted, the French essentially just relied on old methods and essentially did little to stop the Germans. Hell Blitzkrieg itself usually required an offensive initiative, or at the very least a counter-offensive. something that France could have taken away from Germany by taking the lead and pushing in the Rhineland and at Saar. That's ignoring the fact that they actively spent time suppressing socialists and communists with brute force rather than actually taking action. Or that Britain's Royal Family was almost openly supporting Hitler and British appeasement let Hitler gather the power he needed for the conquering of Poland in the first place.

TL;DR: I never claimed that France could magically counter blitzkrieg because polish officers experienced it
I claimed that France repeatedly did not take advantage of multiple opportunities to stop the German war machine before it became too powerful and thus let itself get beaten through this incompetence, with its geo-political appeasement of Germany aiding and abetting the fascist expansion.

Not all of these posts were made by the same user, you schizoid.

Attached: ribbentrop_stalin.jpg (800x578, 229.15K)

That has already been cleared up, thanks for the pointless input