3 ms·
You’re proving the point, are you not? The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You
by avgcorrection 5y ago
You’re proving the point, are you not?
The Nazis were evil, but that doesn’t imply that the allies fought against the Axis powers because they were good. You can do the right thing for the wrong or neutral reasons.
“US and allies”—that the US fought the whole war with the rest of the allies as support is another artifact of Hollywood’s portrayal of WWII. Although it’s understandable that there are less American movies about the Eastern Front, so it’s not like that has to be caused by some propaganda effort.
- ncmncm 5y agoThe western front was more or less a sideshow. All of the big battles were in the East. The Soviets kept bottled up a German force fully half as big as were fielded on the whole western front, in a little peninsula of Latvia ("Courland Pocket"), for almost a year. But the naval war in the Atlantic mattered. And, US supplies (particularly SPAM, and trucks, tires, and fuel) delivered through Iran were helpful late in the war. But aside from naval work that denied Germany South American resources, the Soviets could have done the whole job on their own, and would have overrun all of Europe. In particular, there is no evidence that British and US area bombing achieved anything, although point attacks on rail locomotives did.
- avgcorrection 5y agoUS supplies did matter. I should have been more specific: the boots-on-the-ground war effort of the US seems to be exaggerated in people’s minds.