Comments by "Digital Nomad" (@digitalnomad9985) on "History Hit PANICS And Edits Out Horrible Take On USSR But I SAW IT!" video.

Absolutely. The US declared war on December 11, 1941. The turning point of Germany's eastern front, prior to which Germany was totally on the offensive was the Battle of Stalingrad (23 August 1942 - 2 February 1943). By the time the Battle of Stalingrad had even begun, the US and UK were already shipping aid in bulk to the Soviet Union, mostly food a first, but constantly trucks and fuel, shipped in by Anglo-American convoys fighting through the German attempt at blockade. The defenders of Stalingrad almost starved as it was, and would certainly have starved without that aid. By the time the USSR had turned to the offensive, The US had been supplying, and continued to supply, Sherman tanks in vast numbers to all the allies including the Soviet Union. The UK also supplied the USSR with some tanks. The US and the UK also supplied the Soviets with combat and logistics aircraft. 90% of the trucks supporting the Soviet offensive logistical effort were Studebaker trucks shipped in from US factories, and the bulk of the fuel was from the US as well. Without that aid the Soviet offensive would not have been possible logistically or materially. Shortly after the US declaration of war, the US sent ground forces to aid the British effort to push the Axis powers out of Northern Africa. In November of 1942, the US opened an African front of its own in Operation Torch. The Anglo-American offensive pushed the Axis out of Africa, and deprived them of their main source of oil. This began well before the end of the Stalingrad battle and the start of the Soviet offensive, and paved the way for the subsequent Anglo-American invasions of Sicily and Italy, which took Italy out of the war. This also caused Hitler to divert forces from his eastern to his southern front during the pivotal period. Moreover, any analysis of the USSRs contribution to the allied war effort is incomplete without factoring in their prior contribution to the Axis war effort. The first Soviet intervention in events was its joint operation with the Reich in the conquest of Poland, accompanied by the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Nazi Germany. Not only that, but the USSR was supporting the Reich with its propaganda and vast amounts of material aid shipped across Poland by rail. While the US was already becoming the Arsenal of Democracy by sending material aid to the UK prior to the declaration of war, the USSR was simultaneously becoming the Arsenal of Despotism by sending material aid to Hitler. The courage of the Soviet peoples in the latter part of the war was commendable, but a complete analysis of the net Soviet contribution to the war must take into account that the problem the USSR helped solve was largely a problem they helped create. The USSR didn't join the allies until they had to do so to survive, and they wouldn't have survived without allied help.
2
@almanacofsleep The majority were never consulted, and would be severely punished for unsolicited advice.
1
@lonerider5933 A word that refers to things that exist is more generally useful than a word that refers to things that don't exist. When communists and fellow travelers say that every communist country "isn't real communism", what they mean is it isn't THEORETICAL communism. In a political argument with real world consequences the actual result of every push for communism is germane in a way that the terminology of a comprehensively discredited politico/economic theory is not. Communism as Marxist theory describes it does not and cannot exist, therefore it is not relevant to a practical political discussion. Anti-communism is an opposition to a practical ill, helpfully labeled in many cases by the perpetrators of evil with the name of the politico-economic theory that excuses the evil. The advocates of communism almost to a man supported the states in question, so the pertinent referent of the word "communism" is the actually extant system which the proponents are defending and the opponents are criticizing. Your equivocation is the propagandists eternal struggle to obfuscate.
1
" the USSR have never had in their millitary planning a plan for first strike and invasion of the USA, all the the Soviet millitary planning was centered around defense and response to aggression from the part of NATO." The USSR certainly had in their military planning plans for first strike and invasion of surrounding countries. The USSR never was able to project against the US Navy the power projection to invade the US directly. The US was always to be the last on the list. Not only were the Soviet military plans opened after the fall of the Soviet Union, so that this is documented; not only was Soviet military doctrine and force composition optimized for attack; but the grand strategy of the Soviet Union was spelled out by Lenin in open literature and never formally disavowed (at least not before Gorbachev). Subvert and where necessary conquer neighboring countries first, etc., and the United States last. Their plans had not reached the point to which they could profitably contemplate the invasion of the US yet. The plan was to conquer the rest of the world to gather the resources and bases necessary to defeat the US at home. The NATO never had and does not today have the force mix or treaty structure to facilitate an invasion of Russia except in response to a Russian invasion of a NATO member state. The local force mix and doctrine is first defensive, and could not contemplate invasion until the Russian forces were depleted by Russia attacks, as recent events indicate, or until US reinforcements arrive in response to a Russian attack on NATO.
1