• ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, no. And let’s ignore the part where the only reason they even fought is because Russia wanted to conquer some of the same land as Germany 😂

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I would say it was a combined effort, but Russia suffered a lot more. They didn’t liberate Paris though.

      • Nudding@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        It was a combined effort, but Russia did most of the work and lost most of the lives? Nice

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Russians did nothing on the Western Front or North Africa.

          But yes, they lost the most lives. I’m not sure why that means it wasn’t a collaborative effort. Are you claiming that if the U.S. and Britain had sat by and done nothing, Russia would have defeated Hitler singlehandedly and liberated Western Europe? Because I find that to be a very spurious claim if so.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Suffering more losses does equate to contributing more to towards the victory. For example America’s Lend Lease Act didn’t cost American soldiers but contributed towards the allied victory.