WW2 in a nutshell

    by New_Squirrel_1606

    15 Comments

    1. Nah. 

      They were attacked in a war of annihilation by a pack of rabid warmongering maniacs. 

      There is no comparison.

    2. A--Creative-Username on

      I’d say ww2 pretty objectively had bad guys and good guys. The Soviets did a lot of bad things and Britain certainly wasnt kind to India but I feel phrasing it this way is unfair

    3. PianistNegative8758 on

      Colonies : “So…we fought for freedom. And… against barbary… maybe we could….”

      France and U.K : “Ahahah. Very funny. … We will hit you hard for this insolence.”

    4. Senior-Book-6729 on

      I mean, the UK didn’t have a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact before it all went to shit at least

    5. Mood reading *Four Ball One Tracer* about a South African mercenary company entering the Sierra Leone RUF conflict characterized by mutual use of child soldiers and widespread civilian atrocities

    6. Britain didb’t occupy anything and didn’t turn anything into puppet states. Soviet union kept half of europe to themselves, either through anexation with a good ammount of deportation of locals, or puppet states. In eastern europe, the Brits are good guys by a margin.

    7. HorrorGameWhite on

      As someone who is from a country, which was a victim of the Allied occupation.

      Both are bad

    8. Honestly WW2 HAD good guys and bad guys, its just that the bad guys wherent all on the same side for the whole war.

    9. GazelleDelicious3135 on

      This kind of rhetoric is a slippery slope, while technically correct some dick head will use it to further feel the nazis were right all along. (Looking at you MAGA)

    10. ThewizardBlundermore on

      Comparing the UK to the soviets in terms of being “bad guys” is demonstrably dishonest.

      The soviets was a whole other level of evil.

      Also strong lack of the US flag here whilst we’re on the subject of the allies not being as clean as the movies make it out to be.

    Leave A Reply