this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2026
293 points (99.3% liked)

History Memes

2051 readers
324 users here now

A place to share history memes!

Rules:

  1. No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, assorted bigotry, etc.

  2. No fascism (including tankies/red fash), atrocity denial or apologia, etc.

  3. Tag NSFW pics as NSFW.

  4. Follow all Piefed.social rules.

  5. History referenced must be 20+ years old.

Banner courtesy of @setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world

OTHER COMMS IN THE HISTORYVERSE:

founded 9 months ago
MODERATORS
 

Poll data source

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union_in_World_War_II

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz 44 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm reasonably sure that Germany did the most.

[–] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Shoutout to Germany. We couldn't have done it without ya! 

[–] binarytobis@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Especially the guy who shot Hitler.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 29 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Britain sobbing quietly in the background

[–] Skullgrid@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

hey, the went up from 12 to 16 to 18 percent! That's an improvement!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] neidu3@sh.itjust.works 25 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Well, USSR wouldn't have survived without US help. USSR contributed the most in terms of territorial gain and manpower spent, but they would not have been able to make it without convoys to Archangelsk and Murmansk. These convoys were packed with materiell, mostly from the US, but a lot from the UK as well. Western tanks were vital in the defense of Moscow.

So, an objective answer to the question can only be provided if "most of what" is specified.

Nuance matters. Surveys like these rarely allow for that.

[–] TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world 8 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, even Soviet leaders, including the legendary Georgy Zhukov, low key admit (I will get to that later) that if it weren't for Lend Lease, USSR may have been defeated especially during the pivotal moments in the first couple of months of the German invasion. The material deliveries from the Allies filled the gap while the Soviet rushed their industries out of the German advances and restructuring the Soviet supply chain. Since you mentioned the Allied tanks, the British tanks made up around 40% of Soviet armoured forces in the Caucasus, since the Soviets couldn't easily deliver their own tanks to the Caucasus after the land route was cut off by the Germans.

After the war, the Soviet leadership aimed to minimise the importance of the Allied material deliveries in order lionise their own effort and exalt the communist system. But unofficially, many Soviet leaders were thankful of Lend Lease in a hush hush and low key manner.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 20 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Rember the Russians depended on lend lease to be able to mobilize Siberia and continue to fight

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 24 points 3 weeks ago

Realistically speaking, team effort all around.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Of course the USSR contributed the most once its uneasy agreement with the Nazis broke down.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 12 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

uneasy pact with Germany

This is a widely repeated misconstruction of the events in Reddit and Lemmy. I'm gonna please ask you to actually read my comment and to be open to the historical evidence I bring (using Wikipedia as a source, hopefully not suspect of being tankie-biased), because I believe there is a great mistake in the way contemporary western nations interpret history of WW2 and the interwar period. Thank you for actually making the effort, I know it's a long comment, but please do engage with the points I'm making:

The only country who offered to start a collective offensive against the Nazis and to uphold the defense agreement with Czechoslovakia as an alternative to the Munich Betrayal was the USSR. From that Wikipedia article: "The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused." Poland could have literally been saved from Nazi invasion if France and itself had agreed to start a war together against Nazi Germany, but they didn't want to. By the logic of "invading Poland" being akin to Nazi collaboration, Poland was as imperialist as the Nazis.

As a Spaniard leftist it's so infuriating when the Soviet Union, the ONLY country in 1936 which actively fought fascism in Europe by sending weapons, tanks and aviation to my homeland in the other side of the continent in the Spanish civil war against fascism, is accused of appeasing the fascists. The Soviets weren't dumb, they knew the danger and threat of Nazism and worked for the entire decade of the 1930s under the Litvinov Doctrine of Collective Security to enter mutual defense agreements with England, France and Poland, which all refused because they were convinced that the Nazis would honor their own stated purpose of invading the communists in the East. The Soviets went as far as to offer ONE MILLION troops to France (Archive link against paywall) together with tanks, artillery and aviation in 1939 in exchange for a mutual defense agreement, which the French didn't agree to because of the stated reason. Just from THIS evidence, the Soviets were by far the most antifascist country in Europe throughout the 1930s, you literally won't find any other country doing any remotely similar efforts to fight Nazism. If you do, please provide evidence.

The invasion of "Poland" is also severely misconstrued. The Soviets didn't invade what we think of nowadays when we say Poland. They invaded overwhelmingly Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian lands that Poland had previously invaded in 1919. Poland in 1938, a year before the invasion:

"Polish" territories invaded by the USSR in 1939:

The Soviets invaded famously Polish cities such as Lviv (sixth most populous city in modern Ukraine), Pinsk (important city in western Belarus) and Vilnius (capital of freaking modern Lithuania). They only invaded a small chunk of what you'd consider Poland nowadays, and the rest of lands were actually liberated from Polish occupation and returned to the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian socialist republics. Hopefully you understand the importance of giving Ukrainians back their lands and sovereignty?

Additionally, the Soviets didn't invade Poland together with the Nazis, they invaded a bit more than two weeks after the Nazi invasion, at a time when the Polish government had already exiled itself and there was no Polish administration. The meaning of this, is that all lands not occupied by Soviet troops, would have been occupied by Nazis. There was no alternative. Polish troops did not resist Soviet occupation but they did resist Nazi invasion. The Soviet occupation effectively protected millions of Slavic peoples like Poles, Ukrainians and Belarusians from the stated aim of Nazis of genociding the Slavic peoples all the way to the Urals.

All in all, my conclusion is: the Soviets were fully aware of the dangers of Nazism and fought against it earlier than anyone (Spanish civil war), spent the entire 30s pushing for an anti-Nazi mutual defence agreement which was refused by France, England and Poland, tried to honour the existing mutual defense agreement with Czechoslovakia which France rejected and Poland didn't allow (Romania neither but they were fascists so that's a given), and offered to send a million troops to France's border with Germany to destroy Nazism but weren't allowed to do so. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a tool of postponing the war in a period in which the USSR, a very young country with only 10 years of industrialization behind it since the first 5-year plan in 1929, was growing at a 10% GDP per year rate and needed every moment it could get. I can and do criticise decisions such as the invasion of Finland, but ultimately even the western leaders at the time seem to generally agree with my interpretation:

“In those days the Soviet Government had grave reason to fear that they would be left one-on-one to face the Nazi fury. Stalin took measures which no free democracy could regard otherwise than with distaste. Yet I never doubted myself that his cardinal aim had been to hold the German armies off from Russia for as long as might be” (Paraphrased from Churchill’s December 1944 remarks in the House of Commons.)

“It would be unwise to assume Stalin approves of Hitler’s aggression. Probably the Soviet Government has merely sought a delaying tactic, not wanting to be the next victim. They will have a rude awakening, but they think, at least for now, they can keep the wolf from the door” Franklin D. Roosevelt (President of the United States, 1933–1945), from Harold L. Ickes’s diary entries, early September 1939. Ickes’s diaries are published as The Secret Diary of Harold Ickes.

"One must suppose that the Soviet Government, seeing no immediate prospect of real support from outside, decided to make its own arrangements for self‑defence, however unpalatable such an agreement might appear. We in this House cannot be astonished that a government acting solely on grounds of power politics should take that course” Neville Chamberlain House of Commons Statement, August 24, 1939 (one day after pact's signing)

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

This is some tankie bullshit.

"They didn't invade Poland, modern Poland is to the West, they invaded lands that belong to Ukraine and Belarus"

My brother in Christ - the entire country of Poland moved to the West because the Soviets annexed the east and demanded Germany cede territory to Poland when redrawing the map after WW2. This displaced millions of ethnic Germans who had lived there for centuries. The annexed land was then given to the Belarus and Ukrainian SSRs to administer, and inherited by these new countries when the USSR broke apart.

Your argument is like saying the US didn't invade Mexico because that land is now part of Texas.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Poland had invaded these territories in the Russian Civil War and annexed them, as you see on one of the maps I provided those territories had ethnic majorities of Belarusian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian peoples at the time, what makes you think they were Polish territories?

[–] skibidi@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

They were Polish territories because Poland held and administered them. They were also part of the PLC before the Russian empire seized them...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partitions_of_Poland

We can argue all day about what conditions grant a right to a territory. Or we can cut the bullshit and stop pretending that the Soviets sending the Red Army across the Polish border to conquer land, while raping the inhabitants, was anything but an invasion.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 3 points 3 weeks ago

while raping the inhabitants

And that's where we stop arguing. There is no evidence of higher rates of sexual assault by Soviet troops than by any other, and the whole "rapist hordes" stems from Nazi wartime propaganda and has been picked up by racists like you.

[–] Someonelol@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for bringing up Lviv. Simply put, it was under Polish control since 1272 when it went to King Casimir III during a war of succession only to lose it to the Soviets in 1939. I completely sympathize with Ukrainians losing their land and sovereignty but I think they should respect that of their neighbors too, don't you think?

Regardless of other countries refusing to work with the Soviets in the defense against Nazis, the alternative shouldn't be divvying up Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, Bessarabia, and Lithuania among themselves via military force in a German-Soviet Boundary Friendship Treaty.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago

And what should the alternative be? Because the other only possible alternative was allowing the Nazis full control of those lands. For comparison, the Katyn massacre in Poland likely carried out by the Soviets during occupation consists of figures numbered in the tens of thousands, and Nazi extermination in Poland killed several millions. What's the desired occupation?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

yes they rushed millions of tanks, ships, aircraft and artillery pieces to battle. we know, we sent them lol

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

we sent them

The US sent a total of about 7 thousand tanks to the USSR, but the T-34 Soviet tank saw about 80k units built in total, so while lend lease was very significant, the vast majority of war material of the Soviets was of Soviet origin.

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

I don’t think you can only look at tanks alone since the main hardware sent was trucks/jeeps.

Also fuel and trains.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 4 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

The fact that the Soviets didn't manufacture trucks is because they got them from the USA, not backwards. A truck is significantly cheaper to manufacture than a tank.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

In terms of casualties the Russians did the most, no contest.

[–] LaLuzDelSol@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

I mean they undoubtedly died the most, that's not really the same thing though.

[–] sidebro@lemmy.zip 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Indeed, because that can mean they had bad tactics and gear just as likely 

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 8 points 3 weeks ago

It could potentially mean that, but 80% of Nazi soldiers who died in WW2 died in the Eastern Front, so it doesn't mean that.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

No, but it is a measure of sacrifice. The numbers involved are incredible and without comparison to any allied nation.

The amount of German casualties on the eastern front is not coincidentally the highest, so if killing Nazis is your metric the Russians did most of that.

[–] MoffKalast@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

"Kif, show them the medal I won"

I don't think dying a lot necessarily means means doing much, it just means that you are incompetent and have a careless disregard for life.

[–] Akasazh@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Here's a copy paste of my answer above to someone with a similar argument for your perusal:

No, but it is a measure of sacrifice. The numbers involved are incredible and without comparison to any allied nation.

The amount of German casualties on the eastern front is not coincidentally the highest, so if killing Nazis is your metric the Russians did most of that.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

It's a pretty wild to say that russians dying more than anyone else is the reason nazis lost the war. You usually don't win wars by dying the most. Almost the exact opposite is the goal.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 10 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

Out of every nation to flip to, why the US?

Their impact was in the Pacific theatre not Europe.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Well and American equipment was integral to Nazi defeat even though a large part of it was given or sold to the USSR so they could keep fighting.

[–] wieson@feddit.org 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

But that's not the reason why the impression flipped.

[–] Madison420@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

That's why I said and, it's not wholely a lie and that helps people buy into it.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 12 points 3 weeks ago

American movies are more popular in France than Russian

[–] redhorsejacket@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

That's a wild take. Quibble over exact war contributions scores all you like, but to say the US didn't have an impact in Europe is blatantly false.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Germany would have lost the eastern and western front without them. What they did was speed up the western so the Soviets owned less of Europe afterwards.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

Very true, but the lend leasing that the US gave the USSR is significant (just not as significant as 8.7 million dead Soviets)

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Their impact was in the Pacific theatre not Europe.

?

from the bombing of europe, to overlord - the invasion of europe - this is factually incorrect. the US got into africa later than the UK because, uh, they didn't have colonies lol....

but half of the forces that landed on normandy were US.

the US had a larger footprint, and other allies smaller, in the pacific, but "their impact was in the pacific theater not europe" is incorrect. The US helped bomb germany into rubble, there were impacts in europe lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ceenote@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

The cold war was a helluva drug

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You also have to consider the fall of the communist party in France which fell from being a major political force (with a large infiltration by Russian goons) to a tiny party that's almost irrelevant.

[–] Riverside@reddthat.com 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (16 children)

the fall of the Communist Party

The "fall" in question:

"clandestine "stay-behind" operations of armed resistance that were organized by the Western Union and subsequently by NATO and by the CIA in collaboration with several European intelligence agencies during the Cold War. [...] the operation involved the use of assassination, psychological warfare, and false flag operations to delegitimize left-wing parties in Western European countries, and even went so far as to support anti-communist militias and right-wing terrorism as they tortured communists and assassinated them"

large infiltration by Russian goons

Infiltration? Goons? You mean legitimate supporters of the Soviet Union, the state that saved their own fucking countries from Nazism?

[–] falcunculus@jlai.lu 4 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

The decline of the french communist party is very well documented and was primarily a political matter. They committed many mistakes but also were dealt a serious blow by Mitterand in the 80s; finally, their voter base started voting far-right in the 90s. Not everything is a CIA operation.

The french communist party was also the most Moscow-aligned of all the western communist parties. This is a fact and was a serious factor in its decline since it suffered from its close association to the many failures of the Soviet Union (such as its foreign policy flip-flops and numerous human right violations), and ran all its important decisions by Moscow which prevented it from reacting quickly to the local political events. It can't be said to have been "infiltrated" however, it was all quite open.

I should also add that the french government wasn't too keen on NATO far-right paramilitaries, in that (1) de Gaulle was famously suspicious of NATO and (2) the very same paramilitaries (OAS) tried to assassinate him for advocating decolonization.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 weeks ago

Ive always heard it as Biritsh intelligence, American steel, and Russian blood won the war.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 3 weeks ago

That's what happens when a state collapses, they stop getting as much credit.

load more comments
view more: next ›