Were they really strong or is it just a meme?

>HURF DURF WE ARE WINNERS WITHOUT BOOTS ON GROUND OR DEAD MEN HURF

>they wouldn't even have won WW2 without the US

lol

Gentle reminder that more Nazis died at Stalingrad than were killed by rest of the Allies throughout the war and that the war in Europe was already decided before the Normandy invasion.

Try watching history channel for a while and you'll understand.

Yeah they could have just kept marching after Berlin to Paris, still could have til 1970 because of mutual destruction and strong western fifth columns

Soviet ground forces weren't involved in Korea. You're thinking of the Chinese.

>Yeah they could have just kept marching after Berlin to Paris
"No." Even getting to the Rhine was an idealistic goal dependent upon limited nuclear warfare. They'd be lucky to make it through the Fulda gap.

they outproduced the us in terms of tanks, nuclear bombs, and space travel

the KGB back a shit ton of communist coups across the world and flooded Africa with weapons

they most certainly weren't an "empty threat"

1950-1970 was the window in which the Soviet Union could have won a WW3 against the West.

By the 1980s they were relying entirely on their nuclear arsenal because of the relative decline in conventional capabilities vis-a-vis the West.

The West greatly overestimated the Soviets. Everyone, from economists to politicians to military advisors highly overrated the ability of the Soviets to wage war, the truth was that the system was falling apart, technology was stagnating, the social classes were degrading, and morale was nonexistent.

In the 50s and 60s the Soviets were a real threat. To Europe. But by the 70s much was stagnating. On paper the Russians looked quite good, but Western Europe was recovering, almost entirely recovered by that point, while the East hadn't really grown much at all. Sure they had a lot of tanks, sure they had a lot of planes, but just how long could they wage war? Just how many of them would be willing to fight?
By the 80s the system was falling to pieces and the Soviets weren't a threat to anyone but Germany and Finland.

Of course there was always the threat of nuclear annihilation, but then, the Soviets had never planned for a first strike. Their military was rooted in the idea the West would attack them. That should they become weak and complacent the West would seek to toppled Communism, and of course that wasn't on anyone in the West's mind. The West was afraid of Soviet aggression to destroy freedom.

Even saying Russia wasn't a threat though, any war with the USSR would have been bloody beyond measure. Even a decisive victory would have been mired in rivers of blood on both sides. and despite my claims of Russian inferiority in materiel and morale by the 80s, I highly doubt any stunning victories would occur until the war neared its completion. It was never a question of how hard they could hit, that was adequately guessed and well feared, it was a question of how long they could keep swinging, which ended up highly overrated to say the least.

But over a million Germans died on the Western and Southern fronts.

That's not true and only technically true because most of the men captured at Stalingrad later died at gulags. The US took a lot of prisoners too but most of them returned home alive. Or stayed in the US cause it was apparently quite killer. Some of the stories about how German POWs were treated makes me feel quite good and helps to restore a bit of faith in humanity.

>the story of the hardline protestant getting beer because he wanted "his Germans" to feel comfortable and thank them for a good job on the farm

> t. 20 something who has never done a shred of legitimate researching besides swallowing the tripe they push in public school and the wisdom of Pawn Stars

Stick to your corporate broadcasting and meanwhile, historians with actual credibility discuss whether the turning point of Europe was at Stalingrad, Moscow, or Kursk, why the allies timed their invasion two years after Stalin asked, and how many more years the war would've taken had there been no lend-lease: a program with virtually no relevance after 1941 in which the ships delivering pistols, tow-rigs, and jeeps would head to Britain loaded with Tsarist platinum, gold, and diamond. What, you thought it was for free?

if you take nuclear arms out of it they were a hilarious meme power

shhh the Sovaboo needs his delusion

>get captured on Western front
>oh fuck what sort of horrendous death camp will they make for us in the USA
>get there, it's alright
>war ends, get released, realize America is a paradise
>stay forever

Reminder that german woman where forced to prostitute to survive

>was the world's second largest economy based on conservative CIA estimates really that strong or was it just commie propaganda

why is Veeky Forums so pathetic

Stop getting triggered over nothing you dildo, I didn´t recomend you to watch history channel to learn history, but to learn what history is taught to Americans.

I think up to maybe the late 70s they had the capability to overrun Europe and Asia.
But really no way of striking at the USA without triggering MAD

If you mean strong as in "Strenght of military in Europe", then you´ll be wrong since commies were planning an offensive in case shit happens. Meanwhile the west had just enough for defense.

That generally happens when you have a leader run your country into the ground by declaring war on the entire planet.

Over 90% of LL was given free of charge. Soviet reverse lend lease accounted for less than 10% of the value of goods received.

Hitler didn't declare war on anyone but Poland after the Polish military attacked a German radio station. France and Britain declared war on Germany, Hitler only invaded France because he wanted to end the war fast instead of having another WWI style trench slog.

You are memeing at me right?

There is no conventional victory in the case of M.A.D.

In fact Russia due to its lack of many urban areas and its size might be better off than the US after nukes start flying.

>Yeah but they believe that of everyone. Of Iran, Al Qaeda, Hitler, North Korea etc... it's their job to assume the worst.
nobody thinks Iran or North Korea is capable of world domination.

>Since 1900 the US was so powerful and dominating, it's not even funny. Just look at the stuff they provided Russia in WW2. It was like 100x the amount Nazi Germany EVER had. The reason the US didn't treat Russia more aggressively is because it's Russia. Everyone loves it. You don't hit children.
most retarded thing I've ever read

The Soviet Union did indeed have a strong military, but it was its weak economy that led to the dissolution.

it's hard to dispute that throughout the Cold War, the Soviets did indeed have the best Land Army in the world, but this is mainly because the US by and large is a Naval power first and a land power second, where the Soviets are the reverse role.

When it came to the Navy, the Soviets were hopefully outgunned and they knew it, hence why the bulk of their naval development went to submarines rather than aircraft carriers and frigates, subs gave them a better fighting chance.

the Air forces of the two is really a toss-up. The US had better performing planes that are more technology advanced but very expensive to make. The Soviets on the other hand had jets like the MiG-21, not the best specs, but performed well enough, is rather cheap to produce, and you can make a fuckton of them. From both side's jets performing in Vietnam, Soviet jets were able enough to handle the US, but neither side was able to secure absolute air superiority.

By and large the Soviets do earn their spot as the second strongest power and really the only player who could directly challenge the US military as a whole. Again, the US knew that directly engaging the Soviet military had the possibility to result in defeat, so they played the economic game instead, waiting until the Soviet system was too weak to keep such an immense army supported along with the rest of the USSR's needs.

reminder that the soviets raped women while german women willingly gave themselves to allied soldiers

>held half of Europe hostage for 4 decades
>basically the entire planet was a major jerk off of political coups and intelligence dick waving between the two
>nuclear stalemate
>not strong

/pol/tards who cannot, if their lives depended on it, acknowledge any success, however minor, from the soviet union, since it goes against their idea that jewish bolsheviks ruined the russian empire.

>Since 1900 the US was so powerful and dominating, it's not even funny.

the US was a geopolitical non-entity that punched well below its weight until well into the C20th

reminder that this image is true

>supports BLM
>IQ higher than 80 and not a nigger

Pick one.

Most highly educated college students support BLM. Most of Veeky Forums are dropouts and pseudo intellectual NEETs.

Having a big economy is not a major sucess when you are the biggest country on Earth