The soviets were invaded by the nazis. The nazis were in the USSR killing them on their land. Would you expect them not to die? To not fight using whatever means they could to protect their families from actual nazis who they know have slaughtered millions? Who else's lives would they use?

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Doubling back on the lives shed by the U.S. statement then?

[–] sharkfucker420@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'm not sure how this is in contradiction

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Either the U.S. has some undisclosed tie to Soviet lives lost, or you are I guess using the presumption that the U.S. is at fault for WW2 entirely.

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It took me a second to get what your saying, it's kind of an obtuse argument, but no, that's not the logical implication of what our friend said. The logical implication is that the Lend Lease program was a way for the US to tip the scales with minimal cost to American lives, essentially having the Soviets fight a proxy war (insofar as Lend Lease was the basis for their being able to fight, something which I need to assume gets exaggerated by anticommunists for obvious reasons). The US could have instead spent the same resources on its own military to further enable it to fight on the western front rather than put it in Soviet hands.

I don't think it's really that interesting or useful an argument to make, but it does make sense.

[–] Tiltinyall@beehaw.org -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Yeah that explanation goes way more roundabout than my initial assertion.

There needs to be a new term coined "commie-splaining" that is give to those that just need to scratch that itch y'all get from propaganda.