4 ms·

> As someone born behind the Iron Curtain, here’s my reply to Eisenhouer: all those guns made, ships launched and rockets fired contributed to me, and a few hun

by qiskit 4y ago

> As someone born behind the Iron Curtain, here’s my reply to Eisenhouer: all those guns made, ships launched and rockets fired contributed to me, and a few hundred million people like me, being free now No it didn't. China switching sides and joining the US is what led to the fall of the soviet union. Just like if china, india, etc abandoned russia today, the russian federation will implode within a generation. > rather than living in a North Korea-type Gulag. North korean style gulag exists because of increased military spending. Because north korea is constantly under threat of an attack from the greatest bully in the world ( who constantly increased military spending ), they have to set aside a significant portion of their budget to defense which leads an unhappy population which leads to suppression of the population. > Edit: they also contributed to a few other hundred million ( W Europe, Japan, etc) continuing to be free rather than being occupied by the USSR. It also led to much of europe being turned into rubble and japan being nuked. Not a single bullet or tank or missile contributed to you being "free". But bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept you under soviet rule.

baud147258 4y ago
As a French, I am thankful for the British and American bullets and tanks (and lives lost by all Allies) so that I'm not living under a German/nazi boot, even if I regret the destruction that was inflicted on my country (a few family members got bombed)
- rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
  In 1945, 57% of French people owed the defeat of Nazi Germany to USSR – versus 32% to the USA and Great Britain. Then, Hollywood won. [0] https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study_file.pdf https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study... (page 5)
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    Fighting over which pile of dead husbands and fathers was more important seems like a meaningless exercise.
  - baud147258 4y ago
    I don't disagree with the fact that the USSR did most of the work for defeating Germany in Europe during WW2, but it was with heavy American logistical support, which is what the comment was about ("guns made, ships launched and rockets fired")
    - avgcorrection 4y ago
      How nuanced to credit the usually thankless job of logistics. All those Hollywood movies about supply lines and transport during WWII is finally making an impact on the popular mind.
    - mcv 4y ago
      As the saying goes: Nazi Germany was defeated by American equipment, British intelligence and Russian blood.
- qiskit 4y ago
  Almost all the german military was destroyed by the russians. WW2 in europe was pretty much the eastern front. And we didn't even join the war until germany decided to declare war on the US. If you are french, you should thank the russians for liberating france from germany. Certainly not the US. The russians beat the germans in ww2. Not the british, not the US, not anyone else. Just look at the data. Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
  - baud147258 4y ago
    > the russians for liberating france from germany. Certainly not the US. The russians beat the germans in ww2 The Russians did take part in beating Germany, I didn't want to imply it wasn't the case, but they did with heavy logistical support from the US, which is what the comment was about ("guns made, ships launched"). And can you really say that the US were for nothing in Germany's defeat when more than half of the Panzer divisions were fighting in the Western front? > Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order. well, I don't have a time machine to go and test that hypothesis, but considering how Germany was treating occupied territories, I think we got a better outcome under anglo imperial order than under German occupation (or soviet occupation had they continued West after taking Berlin).
  - HFguy 4y ago
    "The russians beat the germans in ww2" - Russia did tie up the bulk of the German forces. And they suffered and inflicted the bulk of the causalities. So in a sense, this is true. - Regarding the topic at hand, the US and UK literally liberated France. - As others mentioned, Russia was reliant on critical US industrial help. They didn't do it alone. - The US had still not fully mobilized when the Germans and Russians were having some of their largest conflicts. I would argue that the US had not fully mobilized even by the end of the war (e.g., look % of population enlisted, industry still ramping up). Even if Russia had not fought, the US/UK would still have defeated the Germans. If you look at the size of the Armies that could be fielded, the Germans had little chance. Their best bet was to reach some agreement with the US and UK, occupy Europe and focus on the Russians. Having said that, when their opening push against Russia failed, they'd were doomed there also (i.e., once Russia regrouped, they could have defeated Germany alone). - The US had strategic plans to defeat the Germans if both the UK and Russia fell. The size of the planned navy, army and air force proposed was bonkers.
jeswin 4y ago
> China switching sides and joining the US is what led to the fall of the soviet union. China switching sides is one of the many factors. An important one, but not as important as US/NATO matching and outspending (adjusted per-capita) the USSR in military buildup and proxy wars. > Not a single bullet or tank or missile contributed to you being "free". But bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept you under soviet rule. Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule? As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying? > Because north korea is constantly under threat of an attack from the greatest bully in the world ( who constantly increased military spending ), they have to set aside a significant portion of their budget to defense which leads an unhappy population which leads to suppression of the population. Not because of the dictatorship then.
- qiskit 4y ago
  > China switching sides is one of the many factors. An important one, but not as important as US/NATO matching and outspending (adjusted per-capita) the USSR in military buildup and proxy wars. China switching sides is the factor. USSR was never going to outspend the US let alone NATO. > Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule? Soviet "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" did. Our bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept japan, germany, korea, etc under US rule. > As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying? Do you think poland was occupied without bullets, tanks, missiles? Do you think korea, germany, japan were occupied by accident? > Not because of the dictatorship then. You need a dictatorship to protect a small nation free from a much larger power with a history of all kinds of evil.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    > Our bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept japan, germany, korea, etc under US rule. If you think they were under US rule in the same way that Poland, say, was under USSR rule, then... well, if you mean pre-1957 or so, then yes, Japan and West Germany were flat-out occupied. After that, no, they were not "under US rule" in any meaningful sense.

by qiskit 4y ago

baud147258 4y ago

As a French, I am thankful for the British and American bullets and tanks (and lives lost by all Allies) so that I'm not living under a German/nazi boot, even if I regret the destruction that was inflicted on my country (a few family members got bombed)

rcMgD2BwE72F 4y ago
In 1945, 57% of French people owed the defeat of Nazi Germany to USSR – versus 32% to the USA and Great Britain. Then, Hollywood won. [0] https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study_file.pdf https://www.ifop.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/3025-1-study... (page 5)
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Fighting over which pile of dead husbands and fathers was more important seems like a meaningless exercise.
- baud147258 4y ago
  I don't disagree with the fact that the USSR did most of the work for defeating Germany in Europe during WW2, but it was with heavy American logistical support, which is what the comment was about ("guns made, ships launched and rockets fired")
  - avgcorrection 4y ago
    How nuanced to credit the usually thankless job of logistics. All those Hollywood movies about supply lines and transport during WWII is finally making an impact on the popular mind.
  - mcv 4y ago
    As the saying goes: Nazi Germany was defeated by American equipment, British intelligence and Russian blood.
qiskit 4y ago
Almost all the german military was destroyed by the russians. WW2 in europe was pretty much the eastern front. And we didn't even join the war until germany decided to declare war on the US. If you are french, you should thank the russians for liberating france from germany. Certainly not the US. The russians beat the germans in ww2. Not the british, not the US, not anyone else. Just look at the data. Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order.
- baud147258 4y ago
  > the russians for liberating france from germany. Certainly not the US. The russians beat the germans in ww2 The Russians did take part in beating Germany, I didn't want to imply it wasn't the case, but they did with heavy logistical support from the US, which is what the comment was about ("guns made, ships launched"). And can you really say that the US were for nothing in Germany's defeat when more than half of the Panzer divisions were fighting in the Western front? > Also, if the germans won ww2, you'd be saying the exact opposite. You'd be saying how thankful you are that germany gave you freedom from the anglo imperial economic world order. well, I don't have a time machine to go and test that hypothesis, but considering how Germany was treating occupied territories, I think we got a better outcome under anglo imperial order than under German occupation (or soviet occupation had they continued West after taking Berlin).
- HFguy 4y ago
  "The russians beat the germans in ww2" - Russia did tie up the bulk of the German forces. And they suffered and inflicted the bulk of the causalities. So in a sense, this is true. - Regarding the topic at hand, the US and UK literally liberated France. - As others mentioned, Russia was reliant on critical US industrial help. They didn't do it alone. - The US had still not fully mobilized when the Germans and Russians were having some of their largest conflicts. I would argue that the US had not fully mobilized even by the end of the war (e.g., look % of population enlisted, industry still ramping up). Even if Russia had not fought, the US/UK would still have defeated the Germans. If you look at the size of the Armies that could be fielded, the Germans had little chance. Their best bet was to reach some agreement with the US and UK, occupy Europe and focus on the Russians. Having said that, when their opening push against Russia failed, they'd were doomed there also (i.e., once Russia regrouped, they could have defeated Germany alone). - The US had strategic plans to defeat the Germans if both the UK and Russia fell. The size of the planned navy, army and air force proposed was bonkers.

jeswin 4y ago

> China switching sides and joining the US is what led to the fall of the soviet union. China switching sides is one of the many factors. An important one, but not as important as US/NATO matching and outspending (adjusted per-capita) the USSR in military buildup and proxy wars. > Not a single bullet or tank or missile contributed to you being "free". But bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept you under soviet rule. Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule? As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying? > Because north korea is constantly under threat of an attack from the greatest bully in the world ( who constantly increased military spending ), they have to set aside a significant portion of their budget to defense which leads an unhappy population which leads to suppression of the population. Not because of the dictatorship then.

qiskit 4y ago
> China switching sides is one of the many factors. An important one, but not as important as US/NATO matching and outspending (adjusted per-capita) the USSR in military buildup and proxy wars. China switching sides is the factor. USSR was never going to outspend the US let alone NATO. > Sorry, what? You're responding to someone who was born behind the Iron Curtain, and you're saying that Western "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" kept him/her under soviet rule? Soviet "bullets, tanks, missiles, etc" did. Our bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept japan, germany, korea, etc under US rule. > As in, if the west had been militarily weak, the CPSU would have stopped occupying? Do you think poland was occupied without bullets, tanks, missiles? Do you think korea, germany, japan were occupied by accident? > Not because of the dictatorship then. You need a dictatorship to protect a small nation free from a much larger power with a history of all kinds of evil.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > Our bullets, tanks, missiles, etc kept japan, germany, korea, etc under US rule. If you think they were under US rule in the same way that Poland, say, was under USSR rule, then... well, if you mean pre-1957 or so, then yes, Japan and West Germany were flat-out occupied. After that, no, they were not "under US rule" in any meaningful sense.