Explanation
The losses of Germany on the eastern front are widely believed to be the most significant factor in defeating Nazi Germany and the USSR won the battle of Berlin, the final battle before the German capitulation. Thus Europe widely believed (for a good reason) that the USSR was the main contributor in defeating Germany. With the cold war the perception of the USSR became a lot worse in western countries like France and with increasing anti-USSR sentiment the view flipped to viewing the USA as the deciding factor. The USSR (and the Russian Federation today, even if its government is very anti USSR) viewed itself as the most important force in defeating Germany, especially because the USSR had the biggest amount of deaths. It is worth noting that the USSR was at least commercially allied with Nazi Germany until June 22, 1941 and there was an agreement between the nations on which parts of Europe each could invade and which where reserved for the other.
For its many mistakes, the USSR didn't pillage the resources of any country, the only argument you could make in this direction are postwar reparations against Nazi countries such as Hungary. After 1955 especially, the trade policy inside the COMECON was one of the USSR supplying raw goods at subsidized prices in exchange for industrially manufactured goods. This policy is detailed with numbers in Robert C. Allen's "Farm to Factory" and Albert Szymanski's "Human Rights in the Soviet Union". What's your data source for claiming the Soviet Union pillaged any country?
Oh boy.
Poland was conquered by USSR against their will (well. More like betrayed by British and given to USSR)
Looting and plundering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looting_of_Poland_in_World_War_II#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+looting+of+Polish+cultural%2Cworld+and+returned+to+Poland.
Industrial plunder is confirmed by then internal notes and memos, that the Poland under occupation later tried to use to convince USSR to stop because they already plundered a lot, so it's not a CIA propaganda or smthing in case you're wondering.
Notice my comment specifically mentioning post-1955. Poland was made to pay reparations to the USSR because of the lives lost saving Poland, which is debatable, this was stopped after the mid 50s
Your comment started with
I showed you're wrong. Instead of saying "oops, you're right, my bad", you're shifting the goal and trying to... word vomit? I don't think there's any value in talking to you then. But then you wrote this
... The fuck? Invaded country paying reparations? Do you hear yourself you imperialist scum? If you ever visit Poland, ping me, me and my boys are gonna fuck you up for saying that. Do hurry though before the veteran boys will die of old age.
Hope you get banned for that, but I'm glad you resort to violence when confronted with evidence, classic right wing nationalist
What evidence? You haven't gave a bit of that?
Do you also tell Gazan that they need to pay reparations to Izrael, or Ukrainians to Russia?
Nevermind, I'm blocking you.
Betrayed or at least with their blessing. The Curzon Line, which was the Entente plan after WW1, was reaffirmed before and after the German invasion. The territory Poland annexed in 1921 was effectively 'returned' to the USSR.
Considering that one British MP resigned saying he cannot stand that shameful betrayal and the British internal propaganda surrounding that decision, the word "betrayal" fits like a glove.
In their memoirs (from a non-public meeting Churchill ordered to explain this to the MPs), some MP wrote that Churchill argued on country being tired of war, and that they have 100k (or 300k, I don't remember) young Polish men that can repopulate the villages - why would they let them go.
God I hate that old racist.
The twelfth cocktail by lunch and everything was a fight on the beaches for Churchill.
In every country that was forcibly incorporated in the eastern bloc, every factory that could be disassembled was systematically sent to Russia. All the machines and ressources were systematically sent to Russia. That's absolutely pillaging.
Then why was GDP per capita higher in Estonia and Czechoslovakia higher than in the USSR? Why did Romania go from having 40% of industrial workers to 20% after the 1990s? What's your source for this?
I already proved, with sources, that it was backwards. The net material balances were extractive from the USSR which gave resources like metals, gas and oil at subsidized prices to the COMECON countries. Think about it for just one second: the USSR does not need resources, it's the largest country in the world, a fossil fuel exporter, and has immense material wealth from the extensive mining complexes in the Urals. Why would the USSR need raw materials from tiny countries in its orbit? But again, if you don't believe me, you're free to read about it. This is a history community, not a "let's make up reality without sources" community. I provided you sources.
Because there was an evolution between 1946 and 1990? It seems fairly obvious.
Russia stole all the western industry and replaced it with its own inferior tools.
Stalin actually wasn't a wonderful philanthropist. Sorry.
I provided you sources with NUMERICAL DATA contradicting your statements directly. Until you prove otherwise with evidence, don't continue this conversation. This is a community about history, not vibes-based analysis.
You didn't actually. But whatever.