Let's talk about WW2

Who do you guys think was responsible? How could've it been avoided? And who was ultimately in the wrong?

Other urls found in this thread:

voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf
spartacus-educational.com/GERthalmann.htm/GERthalmann.htm:
ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html
youtube.com/watch?v=YDf4RYxD0Js
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>The international Jewish cabal
>It was planned long ago and it could not have been avoided as long as these Jews controlled the affairs of nations
>Nobody was in the wrong except the puppetmasters. The losers were the human race, the winners its masters.

>>The international Jewish cabal

I hear this a lot but how were Jews responsible? Specifically I mean, did they finance the war or something like that?

Soviet Union
>Got Hitler into power
>Signed Non-aggression pact
>Let Europe weaken itself fighting Hitler
>Expanded Westwards to get common border with Hitler
>Prepared for massive invasion scheduled early June 1941
>Hitler surprises Soviet forces, which are caught up in preparations and incapable of defense
>Instead of liberating Russia from the Communists, Hitler wages war on the Russian people and loses
>Stalin covers it all up and claims the war was all Hitler's fault
Read Victor Suvorov's books for more

Yes, they financed both sides, and it was designed to bring about the UN, EU, and other globalist agendas. WW1 before it, and the cold war after it were similarly designed.

It's bullshit.
Hitler fucked with the Jews and they did a lot to hurt him because there are a lot of Jews in power. That's all.

>and it was designed to bring about the UN, EU, and other globalist agendas

How so? Did they sit down and plan this? And if there was a conspiracy of this magnitude how has no one stepped forward?

They didn't, they might have opportunistically taken advantage of it though. I don't think that Jew's act as a hive mind.

>>Got Hitler into power

lmao no they didn't

>Let Europe weaken itself fighting Hitler

I mean, what were they supposed to do?

>Prepared for massive invasion scheduled early June 1941

Could I get a source on that?

Many people have stepped forward and written about it, and you can find their books by googling it. Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler is a good one, here:

voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

He also wrote one about how Wall Street funded the Soviet union from its inception to the very end.

>Who do you guys think was responsible? JEWS How could've it been avoided? JEWS And who was ultimately in the wrong?JEWS

>I don't think that Jew's act as a hive mind

With goals so specific tho I'd imagine some sort of collaboration would be necessary no?

>Victor Suvorov's books
Are you fucking kidding me?

>I don't think that Jew's act as a hive mind.
They nearly do considering their religion literally commands them to do what they do, as God's Chosen people. It's the same way Muslims seem like a hive mind with their jihadi shit.

>Who do you guys think was responsible?
Germany, specifically Hitler

>How could've it been avoided?
kill Hitler the moment he started rearming his military instead of appeasement

>And who was ultimately in the wrong?
Hitler and Nazism

>voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_Hitler.pdf

Thanks user I'll check it out. I've read War is a Racket and thought that was really profound. Is this the same sort of idea? War profiteers making a penny on war and such?

Thats such an obvious shop

Honestly it's a damn shame that Hitler couldn't have just stopped at Austria. Had he not invaded Poland the Reich could have developed into one of the best countries in history. Also all that genocide didn't help either

Yes, it's in the same realm of information. Another good one is Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, and The Unseen Hand by A. Ralph Epperson.

War could've ended pretty quickly if Churchill didn't have a hard-on for fucking over Germany. Hitler was nutty but Churchill was a goddamn warmonger.

They certainly did get Hitler into power. Had the Communist Party of Germany allied with the other leftist parties, they would have outvoted Hitler. However they self-destructively refused to, the only reason they would do this is from orders from Moscow.

When I say they let Europe weaken itself, I mean they untied Hitler's hands to invade Western Europe with the non-aggression pact.

>Get a source on that
Victor Suvorov's book 'Icebreaker' is available for free online.
Also the Soviet Union had 23 000+ tanks, more than seven times more than Hitler.

Brits pull Germany and Austria into WW1 becsuse of falling economics and influence

Zionists pull Americans into War to win it for Entente (Lusitania)

Wilson cuck pushes 14 point plan for peace treaty

Germans get screwed

Germany has huge depression because of reperations

Nazis evolve funded by American Jews to get Jews to Palestine (Haavara Agreement)

Brits declare war again after Nazis fight Poland for killing Sudetendeutsche

>Hitler was nutty but Churchill was a goddamn warmonger.

I mean Hitler broke nearly every treaty he signed. Could you really blame the Brits for not accepting terms with a man as unreliable as Hitler?

Heт я нe шyчy.
A этo нe apгyмeнт.

>Hitler was nutty but Churchill was a goddamn warmonger.
complete opposite. You dont really get the nazi and also fascist mindset that glorified war. Also, It wasnt Churchill who was even the one who declared war, its was Chamberlain. The same guy who appeased Hitler by allowing him to rebuild Germanys military, reoccupy the Rhineland, annex Austria, gave Hitler the sudentland, and even turned a blind eye when Hitler was cucking Lithuania out of land. Then he declared war on Germany 3 days after they invaded Poland

>Who do you guys think was responsible?
no idea user

Germany was the only one sticking to the dearming treaties until they realised that they were the only ones doing so

>Had the Communist Party of Germany allied with the other leftist parties, they would have outvoted Hitler

That's the thing tho with politics at that time. There were no united communists really, the Stalinist hated the Leninist and the Trotskyist hated the Maoist. Same thing with the NatSoc and fascists, up until the Spanish Civil War they hated one another.

>the only reason they would do this is from orders from Moscow.
They didnt because the social democrats sided with the freikorps against the communist in the spartacist uprising

Hohol)

It could of been avoided in the same way Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, Syria and nearly every major war could have been avoided, but people refuse to accept the (((root cause))) and cry on about muh 6 gorillion and Poland

>Nazis evolve funded by American Jews to get Jews to Palestine (Haavara Agreement)

I know of the Haavara agreement but have never heard that the Nazis were being funded by Jews. Do you happen to know who specifically?

Are you retarded? If there was no communism there would be no fascism or national socialism.

t. retard

Idk cause we were on both sides

I blame the Serbs for WWI, the French for their revolution, Hitler for killing Dolfuss, and the West for not demanding the monarchs be put back in charge.

However siding with the Democratic socialists would have saved their lives, whereas going against them sent them to deathcamps.
Also the German communists were funded, and trained in the Soviet Union.

Putinist Shill detected

>If there was no communism there would be no fascism or national socialism.

I understand that NatSoc and fascism was largely a reaction to Communist but to suggest the Soviet Union got Hitler into power is simply not true

I'm retarded but think of how germany was Brendan Frasered after WW1, then how fast they recovered economically after the war ended; It's almost like they got out of a system that creates money out of nothing and a system that loans out money it doesn't have with interest.

>saying Churchill was not a war mongeror
>calling others retards
Is there any way to hide mutt posts? Genuinely need to know

just look for the Banksters (Warburg, Schiff, etc.) and who made the most profit out of the war

>no actual response
yeah, thats about what I expected

>Also the German communists were funded, and trained in the Soviet Union.

I really don't mean to nitpick but do you have a source? I'm genuinely interested because as I understand Stalin had a policy of Socialism in one Country, training and supplying communists in neighboring countries while not out of the ordinary for the USSR certainly went against Stalins policy at the time

Hahah. Look the germans have a war with Poland, don't look at our Empire, we are the good guys. Lets make another worldwar over some shit that has nothing to do with England.

Like I said, Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if the Soviet-controlled communist party of Germany sided against him.
Also don't forget that the Wehrmacht was only rebuilt with the help of the Soviet union. Many German tank commanders were trained on Soviet polygons.

shitty whataboutism

Communist party of Germany (KPD) was funded and its ideology was dictated by Moscow.

>Lets make another worldwar over some shit that has nothing to do with England.
UK guaranteed Polish independence

>then how fast they recovered economically after the war ended

As I understand this was due to ridiculous loans the Reich took out which skyrocketed their debt. These loans and mass rearmament was largely responsible for the "Nazi Economic Miracle" as its now known. In fact, it was these outstanding debts that drove some of the Imperialist ambition of the Reich:

>Starting in 1934 German began to issue MEFO bills. They were similar to a 6 month bond but they were off the official register and could be rolled over indefinitely. We don’t even know how many were issued as they were specifically designed to obfuscate German spending but its been estimated that they were eventually issued at up to 300% of the total GNP per year. And those were on top of normal taxes and bonds.

>While this is a hot topic of debate there is a reasonably well laid out argument that Hitler was forced to invade Poland because the German economy was set to melt down in 1941. We know that Germany had banned most imports in the mid 30’s and had mandatory exports of machinery and consumer goods. Furthermore a cornerstone of the 1939 treaty with the Soviet Union was a complex system of credits that guaranteed German imports from the Soviet Union while guaranteeing Soviet purchases of finished German goods. Both the Germans and the Soviets spoke of the coming partitioning of Poland in economic terms.

In 1932 the communists received 5 million votes this is what scared the shit out of people and made they go towards nations socialism. It’s not untrue at all, it’s the same as saying Barack Obama created Isis. He didn’t actually create the group ISIS, but he created the scenario in which ISIS was possible, and the Soviet Union did the same with international communism, they forced the hand of rich industrialists and bankers to put their support behind Hitler.

>was funded and its ideology was dictated by Moscow.
No it wasnt. Ernst Thalman told Trotsky to go fuck himself when he told Thalman to chill out and team up with the social democrats in order to beat Hitler

>Like I said, Hitler wouldn't have gotten into power if the Soviet-controlled communist party of Germany sided against him.

Again, this is implying that the communists were united in some sort of manner which is not true. The divisions in ideologies within communism resulted in a lot of infighting. To suggest the USSR was directly responsible for putting Hitler into power is simply not true

Do you know where Trotsky was at the time?

>It’s not untrue at all, it’s the same as saying Barack Obama created Isis. He didn’t actually create the group ISIS, but he created the scenario in which ISIS was possible

I understand what you mean and at best you can say that the Soviet Union was indirectly responsible for creating the environment for someone like a Hitler to rise. However, to suggest the USSR put Hitler in power I believe is a gross oversimplification at best and simply untrue at worst

Germany was responsible for both world wars. In both cases, it sought control of "Mittel Europe" and the destruction of the Russian state.
Britain was responsible for escalating both wars, much to the detriment of it's own international position. It gained nothing in both cases.
Germany hasn't given up on this objective. Ukraine is testament to this. But Britain has no role in affairs now. Like France, it's a noisy bystander, occasionally called on to provide moral support and witness testimony.
The US aim, as always, is to prevent any kind of economic partnership between Germany and Russia - this is viewed as a far more dangerous potential development than a Russia-China partnership. The US simply adopted this position - to prevent a united Europe at all costs - from the British and the French. It's a sound strategy in terms of upholding their own national interests, but a costly one as both Britain and France can attest. It may yet swallow the US Empire too (containment is an expensive business), but it's a battle that must be fought in US eyes.

Yeah but almost every work about the Nazi economy since the 1970’s has been completely one sided and unfair. I forget his name but the most famous American economist of the 40’s and 50’s wrote an article for wsj where he compared Nazi German economic recovery vs American in the depression and concluded the Germans did a much better job.

Well "Socialism in one country" is not entirely correct, what it really means is that Stalin paused to gather his strength to conquer the other countries and build a proper army. He did restart his expansion into Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bukovina, Poland, and Ultimately planned to go into Germany.
Here's what the Communists themselves have to say:
spartacus-educational.com/GERthalmann.htm/GERthalmann.htm:
"Thälmann, a loyal supporter of Joseph Stalin, willingly put the KPD under the control of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1928 John Wittorf, an official of the German Communist Party (KPD), and a close friend and protégé of Ernst Thälmann, was discovered to be stealing money from the KPD. Thälmann tried to cover up the embezzlement. When this was discovered by Gerhart Eisler Hugo Eberlein and Arthur Ewert, they arranged for Thälmann to be removed from the leadership. Stalin intervened and had Thälmann reinstated, signaling the removal of people like Eisler and Eberlein and completing the Stalinization of the KPD."

Here read this

>Yeah but almost every work about the Nazi economy since the 1970’s has been completely one sided and unfair

Really? That's interesting personally I hear the economy as being credited as one of the greatest accomplishments of the Reich while it seems based on what I've read that it was due mainly to rearmament and loans. I'd love to hear another theory tho as to how the economy boomed in the way it did under Hitler and the Third Reich

That's actually really interesting user thanks. Was the KPD the largest communist party in Germany at that point? Also:

>Ultimately planned to go into Germany

Is there any evidence of planned Soviet aggression against Germany? I hear Barbarossa often justified as a preemptive invasion but is there any evidence to suggest Stalin was planning aggressive maneuvers against Germany?

>I love democracy. I love the republic.

*Overton window finally swings hard*

>I WILL RESTRUCTURE THE REPUBLIC INTO THE FIRST, AMERICAN, REICH!!!

>Who do you guys think was responsible?

I'll try dumping some WW2 photos If I can. Was there any one conflict that came closer to hell on earth than the Eastern Front?

...

Also boys I just learned this the other day but did you know Stalin had Smallpox and and as a result had a bunch of scaring that he demand be shopped away in photos? Here's a close up of his face with no make up or touch up, only a face a mother could love eh?

>did Jews finance the wars?
Some did, sure. Some financed both sides. So did some Anglo-Americans (like Prescott Bush). But that doesn't mean they started them.
The wars of the European Empires would have occurred with or without Jews, or unscrupulous bankers in general. They were wars for survival in which every participant assumes that the only way to survive is to destroy or dominate your rivals. It's historically illiterate in the extreme to boil them down to financial interest. Those wars were in effect battles that we're part of a war that reaches back a millennia and is still going on today. There are religious and tribal factors as well as geographical and financial (access to commodities).
Why is Ukraine important, for example? For its agricultural base? Nope. Russia no longer depends on food from Ukraine and western Europe never did. For other commodities? Nope. There are easier pickings if you're desperate enough to need to start a war for them. Ukraine is pretty worthless - a fictional country sellotaped together with parts of Poland and Russia. There is no Ukrainian nation.
But it's hard to defend Russia if you don't control Ukraine. It has always been impossible to fortify the Steppe against attack - that's why most of us ended up in Europe. You need a defensible position either side of it, preferably as far from your capital as possible, so you need western Ukraine, or part of it at least. If you can't hold it, at least make sure your enemies can't either.

It's such a shame too as coming out of the 19th century the sky was the limit for Europe. The West was riding high and the catherdral like potential for the 20th century becomes all the more depressing when you looked at what happened. 1914, what a disaster. The year the West collectively committed suicide never to be restored to former glory

Thank you too user.
Victor Suvorov's Icebreaker details the Soviet preparations to invade Germany.
Naturally the Soviet(now "Russian") government has carefully kept the invasion plans under lock and key, however one plan (from the 15 of may 1941) was published by one Colonel Karpov, in the latter half of the twenty first century, after "Icebreaker" was published.
Here is an English article that discusses this further:
ihr.org/jhr/v20/v20n6p59_Michaels.html

The EU was a concession to Germany, recognising it's position as leader of continental Europe and removing the incentive to otherwise assert it's position by force - it's based on the lessons of Versailles and has nothing to do with Jews and everything to do with geopolitical reality.
Not one of you dumb fucks has read a book on grand strategy, have you? Total fucking brainlets.

Because they were loyal to different factions. Most expat Russian socialists in Germany were Trotskyists. They were exiles, like Trotsky himself who spent much of the period in Istanbul. They were simultaneously agitating for revolution in Germany as well as the overthrow of Stalin. These were the people leading most of the socialist movements in Germany at the time.

Sure there were Trotskyists, but anti-stalin Elements were removed from the KPD
Read this

You're not entirely wrong but you're completely ignoring the presence of Trotsky in all this. It was a very complex situation. Stalin needed a bulwark against Trotskyism, amongst other things, and that bulwark became the German state. So, yes, part of the German military was rebuilt in the USSR, but that doesn't mean Stalin made the wrong call.

Thanks user I've never really seen concrete evidence of a USSR offensive so this is great stuff. Despite these plans tho do you think the Reich would've been better off had they not invaded at all? I feel like Germany could've done a lot better in a defensive war against a relatively poorly trained Red Army rather. Could've done much better in this scenario rather than in the blunder that turned out to be Barbarossa would you agree?

When did I suggest Stalin made a wrong call?

>Europe died in 1914
is my stock reply to those who ask me if it's dying now or if it can be saved. We European people who are left are merely the carrion feeding on its corpse and we've reached the stage where the best meat has been stripped and the bottom feeders and vermin are allowed to move in and pick the bones. It can't be saved because it's dead.

Such a god damn shame, we can only speculate in alternate history of course but I often wonder if the world would've been better off had you guys not stepped in to protect Belgium and allowed Germany to take France. It may have resulted in a much shorter war and ultimately been better for Europe as a whole. Oh well, no point in crying over historical spilled milk I suppose but one can't help but wonder

Yes, I know, but the KPD wasn't the Marxist street, otherwise socialists may have won power. Political parties rarely represent the grass roots, even today. We call those who do populists. The Nazi's were a reflection of their grassroots and that, for me, indicates why they succeeded where others failed.

Churchill and US steel

The Red Army being poorly trained is not entirely true.
The Red Army was training intensively for an offensive war. They were poorly trained in defense, and of course, the regular army was destroyed in the first few months of the war and the rest was reserves with little training at all.

Now was Barbarossa the best course of action?
Yes.

Germany did not have the time to prepare for a defensive war, the army it had built with help of the Soviet Union was an offensive force built for blitzkrieg. Furthermore the Soviet forces were built to crush defense, despite heavy losses they broke through the Mannerheim line in Finland, and they had far more forces aimed at Germany, and Germany had much less defensive capability than Finland.
Even if Germany managed to hold off the Soviet invasion for any significant length of time, they would face the issue of resources: with the British blocking resources from the West, and the Soviet Union blocking resources from the East, (and destroying their oil source in Romania) they could not last long.

Hitler's only hope was to destroy the Red Army and the Soviet Union in one blow, however he failed to do that, and his inexorable defeat came upon him.

I inferred from you implying he could and should have succeeded in fomenting a revolution that you consider his failure to to be a, well, failure. I'm not disagreeing entirely - simply arguing that he also had to take into account that he might end up with a Trotskyist revolution rather than a Stalinist one, so he was hedging.

/thread

Fair enough, the KPD was not in the interest of Grassroots. Stalin didn't want independent Communists running around, and the KPD could get all it's resources from the Soviet Union. The KPD was a pawn, sacrificed to get Hitler into power and destabilize Europe.

Oh I see. Yes I agree. Stalin did not want independent Communists appearing in other countries. After all if he had to fight them that would be horrible PR.

>Germany had much less defensive capability than Finland.

I find this hard to believe, in WW1 the Germans fared pretty well against the invading Russians. Sure the Wehrmacht may not have been built as a defensive force but they would've done better than Finland at the very least no? I'd imagine they also would've had some support from the west if they were being invaded by an aggressive Communist power. I could see America doing a lend lease sort of thing with Germany if they were the victims of an invasion. It's pure speculation on my part but I believe at the very least the Third Reich would've had the high ground morally in such a scenario

France and Belgium have, ultimately, accepted the fate Germany had in mind for them. So, undoubtedly, it was a bad decision on our part. We ended up surrendering 180,000,000 Europeans to communism to protect...well, nothing.
>the Jews?
It's unlikely, in my view, that Hitler would have gone through with the holocaust, had we stayed out of the war. He would have displaced and dispossessed them, sure, but the wealth of some Jews would have been worth sparing the lives of tens of millions of Europeans (including 6 million Jews).
There's no upside to those wars, no matter what our own propaganda says. They achieved nothing and cost us almost everything.

Let me drop some REAL redpills:
>who do you guys think was responsible?
monarchs of europe pre and during ww1, especially Wilhelm II and Nicholas II

>It's unlikely, in my view, that Hitler would have gone through with the holocaust, had we stayed out of the war

That's the thing tho, I can't blame Britain for not accepting peace terms with Hitler. He had a nasty track record for breaking treaties signed by Germany and peace terms I think would've been far from a guarantee that Nazi aggression wouldn't have eventually come to Britain's door. I could be wrong and Hitler could've very well stuck to his word in regards to potential peace terms but I understand the rationale of Churchill and his decision.

I think you are correct, Wilhelm II was largely responsible for soiling the God-tier diplomacy Bismarck worked so hard to maintain. Willy's autism resulted in tarnished relations with Russia and Britain. His turbo tism left Germany surrounded and faced with a two front war which was the ONE thing Bismarck tried so hard to avoid. This is why Monarchies are retarded. It's just a position one is born into instead of earning it through some form of Merit or skill. Say what you want about Hitler and Stalin but they were formidable individuals who earned their place to some extent rather than simply being born into it

I say this because Finland spent almost it's entire military budget from the Russian Revolution to the Finno-Soviet war on the Mannerheim line, a system of bunkers, minefields and anti tank barriers in a dense forest. The Soviets invaded in -30 to -40 degree centigrade temperatures, in deep snow, and STILL broke through.

Germany had nothing of the sort, and did not have the time to construct that.

I'm sure the German's would've put up a valiant fight, but a trench of Germans with machine-guns may stop Russian infantry in WWI, but against 24 000 + tanks and overwhelming air, artillery, and of course numbers, I don't think they could have lasted long.

As for aid from the West, I find that unlikely. Britain was in open war with Germany, and was hoping for Russia to fight the Germans to get them off their back. America however was already helping the Soviet Union, before lend-lease.

Also Claiming the moral high-ground for Germany would be difficult since the world intellectuals viewed them as "evil right-wing conquerors" while the Soviet Union was "the progressive pinnacle of leftism". The West didn't care when Stalin starved Ukraine, and invaded half a dozen countries in 1939-1940, why would they care if he invaded the Third Reich?

this guy is taking memes for history

>Germany would be difficult since the world intellectuals viewed them as "evil right-wing conquerors"

I think this narrative took root more so after the war rather than during it. Britain certainly vilified the Nazis but they had a fair amount of support in America even from notable industrialists like Henry Ford. Public opinion in America at least turned against the Nazis only after America had joined the war. I don't think a left wing sentiment was really prevailing at that point in America especially not for Communists. Had Stalin attacked first I could just as easily see the narative being turned on it's head within the States, depicting Stalin as a genocidal dictator and such. Also:

>America however was already helping the Soviet Union, before lend-lease.

How so?

>Monarchies are retarded
literally too when you take the in-fucking into account, Wilhelm had mental and physical defects which is why even his mother didn't love him, which lead into all sorts of other mental problems and inferiority complexes, a lot of people don't know much about him but hes a super important character to modern history, ww1, and therefore ww2, cold war and the mess we're in now can be traced back to his sad story. It's a lot more complicated and you can't solely blame him but I think out of all the people he and his whatever advisor whos name I forget have the most responsibility in it.

Yea that's the issue I have with the whole Jewish conspiracy that Sup Forums often likes to talk about not only in regards to the World Wars but in modern day as well. While it's undeniable there are influential and powerful Jewish people that make up the highest echelon of society I find it such a simplified view to suggest they are responsible for dictating the world in such a way. People are often not this organized and I can't help but feel saying Jews are responsible for almost everything in the modern world is a position which lacks a fair bit of nuance and historical context. I don't know it just feels intellectually lazy to me I suppose

>It's a lot more complicated and you can't solely blame him but I think out of all the people he and his whatever advisor whos name I forget have the most responsibility in it.

Yes while I think Willy bears a fair deal of the responsibility one can't ignore the incompetence of the Monarchs during the early 20th century. Had there been actual competent states man in their position I could see a lot of the blood shed of the 20th century being avoided.

Soviets would've had a lot easier time breaking trough if they didn't JUST themselves so hard:
>Stalin executes most of his top brass, commanders to attack finland have barely any experience
>equip you hohols and gopniks with winter gear and use zerg strats
also based spirits punished their sinful commie ways and:
>bad weather keeps planes grounded most of the time
>-40 celsius winter
not to diminish the incredible accomplishments of my forefathers but we got pretty lucky too.

soviet union was campaigning against "fasisits" since the 1930s....

Suvorov is a CIA/MI6 project and a homosexual.
Defectors will parrot whatever propaganda just to be granted asylum and a comfy govt job.

youtube.com/watch?v=YDf4RYxD0Js

jews jews jews jews jews and jews

You're mostly right except for the top brass part, the fact that Stalin killed off the best Soviet Commanders is a Soviet Propaganda myth. Also the Soviet Union invaded Finland with the best tanks in the world, namely the KV which also helped. And the first waves of Soviet Soldiers didn't have winter gear, they expected the invasion to be a cakewalk.

But respect to you guys, you saw Communism was coming, and you were ready!

>le intellectually argument

no, things are simple. jews are nepotistic and hold all the money today. money = power. so they got all the power