Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login


Submitted on
May 8
Image Size
171 KB


33 (who?)
VE Day 2014 by Party9999999 VE Day 2014 by Party9999999
Add a Comment:
badmon209 Featured By Owner Aug 15, 2014  Student Digital Artist
Don't know why murica or england are on the list. To be honest, only Greece, The Soviet Union and China matter. If Greece wasn't attacked, I doubt the Soviet Union could of moved in because of the bought time. China with the help of the Soviet Union really repelled Japan.
LeRevolutionnaire Featured By Owner May 17, 2014
MrAustin390 Featured By Owner May 12, 2014
Needs more flags. After all, Japan too was also a vicious mass murdering empire that needed to be stopped by the allies. 
DeltaHD Featured By Owner Jul 6, 2014
like the R.O.C
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
And the Soviets were not mass murdering?
MrAustin390 Featured By Owner Jun 4, 2014
I'm very much aware of the horrors of Soviet repression during World War II. After all, they did invade Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and parts of Romania before they joined the war on the allied side, and it was because of the Soviet Union that some liberated countries were lost behind the Iron Curtain for another 45 years of brutal repression.

It just so unfortunately happens however that the Soviet Union was not only overlooked by the Western Allies, but were actually supported by them. I'm sure you're aware of the shameful history of American realpolitik support of 'friendly' dictators, but the worst example of American support for dictators was their alliance with the mass murdering monster Stalin from 1941 - 1945.
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014
Of course I agree, but I mean you should not glorify one side as evil and one as good,
especially not only because one dictatorship that killed even more people won against another.

Also the western allied were no angels, do you really think they fought against Germany because of jews?
It was about power and money, the USA, France and Britain were no bit less racist than Germany.
That they fought for the jews or human rights is a nice propaganda shit in the years after the war.

And the bombing holocaust on german cities, the Rheinwiesenlager, the expulsion of 15 million, mass raping,
stealing of territories and so on sounds rather similar to the awful nazi crimes? So is there really a white and black side?
Winner write history, loser are always the satanic evil in their eyes.
MrAustin390 Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014
Well it was the German side that invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, Greece, Belarus, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine and Russia while trying to impose fascist rule over their people in the first place, not the US, UK, France, Canada or any of the other Western allies (The USSR is obviously a different story).

You ask if the Western allies fought for the Jews. Let me ask you. Does it really matter? Does it really matter whether the allies really cared about the Jews?
I like to think that they didn't just fight for the Jews, but rather they fought for democracy. What ever the reason the UK, France, USA, Canada went to war against Germany, it was a heroic effort to liberate whatever part of Europe they could from Nazi tyranny, so I say it doesn't matter what they fought for, because we both know which side any Jew would support.

And please, don't try to bunch Soviet war crimes with American war crimes during World War II, since the Soviets and their communist clients carried out the sort of crimes no other nation carried out, and that the Americans and Soviets weren't really allies as shown by the Cold War division that followed immediately after. You're moral equivalence between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union is well founded. Yes, it was the Soviet Union that annexed territory, carried out the largest ethnic cleansing and the largest mass rape of civilians in all of history. 

But the war crimes committed by the Western allies is hardly in the same league as those carried out by Hitler. It doesn't even come close. Hell, (West) Germany was one of largest recipients of American aid through the Marshall plan after World War II. That kind of moral equivalence was one of the main reasons the Pope said absolutely nothing about the Holocaust and refused to excommunicated any Nazi Catholics.
I'm not sure how you'd respond to this, but if I was alive during the period, I'd support the Western allies without question, in spite of the crimes committed, because no amount of crimes committed by the allies can change the fact that Germany from 1939 - 1945 really was on the wrong side of history, while the allies were on the right side. 
Arminius1871 Featured By Owner Jun 5, 2014
Czechoslovakia lol, an artificial state to damage the Germans, taking the Sudetenland and Böhmen which was
since 1000 years part of the German Reich. They said the historical border of Bohemia must be saved...but the historical border
of Hungary was not important to them, which shows their arrogant attitude.

You know that Britain and France declared war on Germany, not the other way round? no? Hitler definitly wanted to attack the communists
no doubt, but he never wanted a world war with the west. So Britain and France caused another world war because of a tiny regional conflict
about West-prussia in Poland, a region stolen after ww 1. where 2/3 of the peoples are Germans. What a joke and you believe tha propaganda
from the always alone guilty Germany, hahaha XD

They definitly did not fight for jews, and if you would follow the news, America is not a real democracy itīs an oligarchy and a state that spies
and causes wars by sinking their own ships, to gain more power. The western states were treaten extremely good by the Germans btw.,
the french officers were treaten with highest respect, hundred thousands of french women fell in love with german soldiers.
You still believe in that history channel shit about "evil" german soldiers, pf they were completely normal men as anyone.

I just wanna admit, the Americans did horrible war-crimes, too, and a nation that is based on a race genocide has not a bit of a right
to point with the finger at Germany. Also Australia not btw. (aborigines). The number of killed doesnīt matter, the same shit was done
by any big nation, so they better shut up about spreading stereotypes on Germany.

Itīs very controverse if a victorious Germany in the 2. ww would be good or bad, it matters for who good and for who bad.
The jews and many east-slavics wouldīve been killed, thatīs obvious. The rest of the Europeans would live on like always,
and not face a catastropic fertility rate and mass-immigration like now. Everyone has to do decide for himself what he thinks about it.
I definitly judge their crimes as evil. The result of the war was not really satisfieing tho.
MrAustin390 Featured By Owner Jun 7, 2014

Czechslovakia being an artificial state to damage Germany is a statement that has no evidence behind it, and Hitler clearly wanted more than just Sudetenland as clearly shown by Germany's invasion of the non-German Czechslovakia early 1939. Not sure about Czechslovakia's border with Hungary; not concerned about it either. It's a non-sequitur argument that doesn't change anything about Germany's imperialist ambitions back then.


Well Britain and France obviously had to take action against Hitler after September 1939. They did nothing to stop the German invasion of Sudetenland in 1938 when the German military was much weaker, hoping that it would end there. It didn't. Germany later took over the non-German parts of Czechslovakia as well in 1939. They did nothing to stop that either, so Hitler than invaded Poland thinking the same would happen. Obviously the war declarations came this time, but even then Britain and France didn't actually do much to help Poland, and France even gave up a brief offensive against Germany. Regional war about West-Prussia in Poland that was stolen from Germany after World War I? More like territory stolen by Prussia from Poland after the third Polish partition. You must not be too fond of Poland aren't you?

Even then, Hitler obviously wanted more than to just reclaim pre-1918 Imperial German territory. 

How does a 'regional war in German territories stolen from Poland' explain the existence of the General-Government, the occupation of Polish territory not previously controlled by Germany before 1918? How does that explain the cultural destruction of Poland? How does that explain Hitler's mad decision to end the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and invade the Soviet occupied territories in Poland? How does that explain the Hitler's decision to invade Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Luxembourg, all of which were neutral states before 1939? How does it explain Hitler's invasion of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia in 1941? The fact is Germany started and escalated World War II in Europe, and posed such a threat to the rest of the world that it took several allied armies from several nations to crush the Nazis.


It might be a bit hard for you to grasp as a German nationalist, but everyone else who knew about World War II at the time would've definitely supported the allies. Did the allies really fight to save the Jews? I wouldn't know about it. Does it matter? No.  Anyone living outside of the Axis powers (and some living inside) would've supported the allies. The Polish resistance who fought to free their country from the Nazi yoke would've supported the allies.  The British civilians who were being bombed by German bombers would've supported the allies. The Russian soldiers ready to defend the motherland would've supported the allies. Even the French were grateful for their liberation from Nazi tyranny by the allies in 1944.

And so you bring up the proposition that most German soldiers who fought in the Wehrmacht were actually nice people. Can you actually prove this? There's different sides to different stories, and the Wehrmacht were known to commit a lot of war crimes. Still, like many other arguments you bring up, what kind of people the soldiers were is simply irrelevant. It's irrelevant because Nazi leadership, you know, the guys who actually held power, were made up of monsters like Bormann, Brunner, Eichmann, Goebbels, Goeth, Hess, Heydrich, Himmler and Hitler. No nice guys in sight. I won't comment on relations between French civilians and soldiers and German soldiers either, because it's simply irrelevant.

It's a well established fact that the Russian soldiers who served in the Red Army didn't do so because of any loyalty towards Stalin, but because of their devotion to defending the motherland from the fascist invaders. But does that change the fact that the Soviet leadership invaded and occupied Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania pre-1941, and the rest of Eastern Europe post-1944? You're not one to hesitate when it comes to criticising the Soviet Union.

True, the American democratic system isn't perfect, but to say that America isn't a real democracy isn't a fact, but opinion, considering that they have the world's oldest constitution. 

Any criticisms of the American system can easily be used to criticise any other country in the world. I hear the EU has too much power over its member states, and unlike Obama, no one ever voted Barroso into power. Not that it really matters though, because it's an irrelevent topic. And talking about NSA surveillance is not only irrelevent, it has no place in a World War II discussion (the NSA didn't exist during World War II).


So you dare to call out the United States and Australia for their poor treatment of their indigenous populations. Colonialism might have been a major cause of suffering in the 19th century, but by the 20th century much of the crimes against indigenous people had ended. In the 20th century, there was no genocide against anyone caused by Australia and the USA. In the 20th century they had more freedom than Germany did under Hitler. In the 20th century, only the Soviet Union could rival Germany for most amount of suffering caused.

What makes the Nazi Genocide so unique isn't just the number killed (6 million Jews + other Holocaust victims like Slavs, Romani and the disabled), but the number killed in the span of just 6 years, and the need for allied armies to put an end to it.

It seems you have a habit of beating the allied nations for their crimes as a way of discrediting their sacrifices they made destroy the Nazis. Should I point out that mentioning indigenous mistreatment is actually irrelevant? It didn't happen during 1939-1945, and it didn't even happen in the 20th century. It's not only irrelevant, it's ad hominem.


Your last point is about the possible scenario of German victory during World War II. You acknowledge that the Nazis wanted to exterminate the undesirables, but you think that the Western Europeans would've simply accepted their lives under Nazi tyranny. The only Western Europeans that might have accepted the reduction of a continent to a prison would've been those living in neutral countries uncontrolled by the Nazis, like Sweden, Switzerland and Ireland. No dispossessed citizen would've completely accepted German rule over France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia as long as people like Churchill still existed to keep fighting against tyranny.

Add a Comment: